New Damien Echols Interview

[Compassionate Reader]

Wrt the idea that the killings stopped when the three were incarcerated being some sort of "proof" of their guilt, IMO there's another explanation for the phenomenon of no more killings. What if the killings weren't Satanic sacrifices or thrill kills? What if the boys were targeted because of something that they knew or saw, as the recent affidavits suggest? What if the killings were discipline gone terribly wrong, with two of the boys being killed because they witnessed the out-of-control discipline? In short, if the motive is wrong, there are numerous explanations for the killings that wouldn't involve the three falsely incarcerated young men. (And, Sweet Tea is my favorite drink!)

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't think Jessie Misskelley would have found it at all difficult to find younger, weaker, easy to subdue people in prison for at least the last ten years of his incarceration. While I don't believe Jessie to be a murderer, I'm not naive about him either - its pretty obvious he was a bully in prison.

Re; serial killers, etc - the last time I looked up statistics on the subject murder had a dramatically lower recidivism rate than other crimes. Something like 40% of criminals overall who are paroled re-offended, but only about 1% or so for murderers released on parole. So how common serial killers are in sheer numbers I don't know, but as a proportion of murderers I think they are relatively rare.

 

[SweetT]

Wrt the idea that the killings stopped when the three were incarcerated being some sort of "proof" of their guilt, IMO there's another explanation for the phenomenon of no more killings. What if the killings weren't Satanic sacrifices or thrill kills? What if the boys were targeted because of something that they knew or saw, as the recent affidavits suggest? What if the killings were discipline gone terribly wrong, with two of the boys being killed because they witnessed the out-of-control discipline? In short, if the motive is wrong, there are numerous explanations for the killings that wouldn't involve the three falsely incarcerated young men. (And, Sweet Tea is my favorite drink!)

Who would have been the one that was disciplined? Who were the witnesses? Who disciplined the child and which child? Just asking. Also, I have never believed the killings were satanic sacrifices, I know you werent implying that I believe that but I dont so just wanted to make sure that was clear. I know others do believe that scenario.

 

[Hez]

No, not really. Murders happen in prison, sadly. Besides all three have been free for nearly three years at this stage.

It's actually closer to 2 years, but that's not the point. How come these 3 so-called vicious murderers haven't killed anyone since their release or committed any other felonies? How come Damien hasn't killed and eaten his wife yet, like so many people were sure would happen as soon as the WM3 were released? How come 3 young men that were institutionalized for 18 years and locked up with the worst of the worst haven't re-offended? I think if that was even a remote possibility, it would have happened within the first year of their release, due to the stress of re-integrating into society and learning how to live and function outside of an institution for the first time since they were teenagers. Instead, we have seen the exact opposite, which I think is because they were never guilty in the first place. :twocents:

 

[SweetT]

Are you all using the step fathers hair found in a shoe lace for evidence to imply the step dad had something to do with the murder? Just curious. As I know when my son was young and I had to be at work at 7 am his stepdad got him up and around every morning for school and that included putting on his shoes and tying them for him, so I can see how that could happen. In fact he even did laundry a lot as I worked a lot of hours. I would not have been surprised if one if his hairs ended up in my sons shoe lace or clothing in fact I would be surprised if it wasn't there.

 

[Cappuccino]

Are you all using the step fathers hair found in a shoe lace for evidence to imply the step dad had something to do with the murder? Just curious. As I know when my son was young and I had to be at work at 7 am his stepdad got him up and around every morning for school and that included putting on his shoes and tying them for him, so I can see how that could happen. In fact he even did laundry a lot as I worked a lot of hours. I would not have been surprised if one if his hairs ended up in my sons shoe lace or clothing in fact I would be surprised if it wasn't there.

And what makes you think Michael Moore was tied with Stevie Branch's shoe lace?

 

[SweetT]

It's actually closer to 2 years, but that's not the point. How come these 3 so-called vicious murderers haven't killed anyone since their release or committed any other felonies? How come Damien hasn't killed and eaten his wife yet, like so many people were sure would happen as soon as the WM3 were released? How come 3 young men that were institutionalized for 18 years and locked up with the worst of the worst haven't re-offended? I think if that was even a remote possibility, it would have happened within the first year of their release, due to the stress of re-integrating into society and learning how to live and function outside of an institution for the first time since they were teenagers. Instead, we have seen the exact opposite, which I think is because they were never guilty in the first place. :twocents:

So you agree that KC Anthony is innocent too? She hasn't killed again, or Misty Cummings? The list is long, what about them? I never thought Damien would eat his wife or anything, but we don't live with any of them either, so I can't say what he is like now. Just because someone can live normally after being locked up after 18 yrs doesnt make them automatically innocent either. Plenty of murderers have been released and not killed again. That lady in Canada is a good example of that. She had her hand in killing several young girls with her boyfriend or husband cant recall but she's been loose for yrs and has not killed again.

 

[SweetT]

And what makes you think Michael Moore was tied with Stevie Branch's shoe lace?

I don't know about that I had read that there was some hair found that supposedly was the step dads hair. I don't know who was tied with it.

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't know about that I had read that there was some hair found that supposedly was the step dads hair. I don't know who was tied with it.

The hair in question was found in the ligature binding Michael Moore's left hand to his ankle.

Whether or not that hair is evidence depends alot on which child was tied with whose laces. Try and puzzle it out, I dare you.

(I tried once but it gave me a headache :banghead.

 

[reedus23]

Well killers start somewhere and they were pretty young to be starting down that road. BTW: I don't believe everything that HBO puts on tv, it is for ratings and money. I also don't believe everything on the internet, I try to form my own opinions with what info I can find on my own. I have seen too many tv dramatizations that I know were pumped up and changed just for ratings sakes.

Regarding the bold, I respect that, even if we ever disagree on a point. What you just stated, though, is one more thing that, IMHO, cuts against it being the WM3...namely they were pretty young. Being so young I have a hard time meshing that with someone who can leave a crime scene so devoid of evidence.

 

[SweetT]

Regarding the bold, I respect that, even if we ever disagree on a point. What you just stated, though, is one more thing that, IMHO, cuts against it being the WM3...namely they were pretty young. Being so young I have a hard time meshing that with someone who can leave a crime scene so devoid of evidence.

Oh Lord, I can believe it. For one thing many techniques we have now days and take for granted were not available at that time, for another being outside it would all be exposed to weather etc.
I actually think back to this recent Jodi Arias case and how if it were not for that camera how little forensic evidence that brutal murder actually would have against her. It boggles my mind to even think that if not for the camera and the friends who knew she was crazy that she may have gotten away with this. With even all our technological advances these days it almost takes a smoking gun to get enough evidence to convict someone.

 

[Hez]

So you agree that KC Anthony is innocent too? She hasn't killed again, or Misty Cummings? The list is long, what about them? I never thought Damien would eat his wife or anything, but we don't live with any of them either, so I can't say what he is like now. Just because someone can live normally after being locked up after 18 yrs doesnt make them automatically innocent either. Plenty of murderers have been released and not killed again. That lady in Canada is a good example of that. She had her hand in killing several young girls with her boyfriend or husband cant recall but she's been loose for yrs and has not killed again.

Not at all! You are comparing apples to oranges. All these people, with the exception of that child-murderer Casey Anthony, and that sicko Karla Homolka, are in custody. Scott Peterson is on death row, under lockdown 23 hours a day. Jodi Arias is also on 23 hour lockdown everyday now. Kind of hard to commit more crimes when you are already in prison and under constant supervision. Casey Anthony is roaming free and will re-offend someday, imo. If Jodi Arias was free, she would also kill someone again, guaranteed (if you've seen her post-conviction interviews, she practically says she will). Karla Homolka should be wiped from the face of the earth. She helped her husband rape and murder her own sister while she videotaped it! When Karla Homolka's little girls become teenagers, they better watch out because she has no problem with killing her own flesh and blood. I believe all these people you mentioned are guilty as sin, whether they are currently incarcerated or not. I believe the WM3 are 100% innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with the murders that they spent 18 years in prison for. :twocents:

 

[Hez]

Oh Lord, I can believe it. For one thing many techniques we have now days and take for granted were not available at that time, for another being outside it would all be exposed to weather etc.
I actually think back to this recent Jodi Arias case and how if it were not for that camera how little forensic evidence that brutal murder actually would have against her. It boggles my mind to even think that if not for the camera and the friends who knew she was crazy that she may have gotten away with this. With even all our technological advances these days it almost takes a smoking gun to get enough evidence to convict someone.

BBM - Slightly o/t, but she also left behind a bloody palmprint, with a mixture of her blood and her victim's blood. She also left behind a hair, also stuck in the victim's blood. If the jury couldn't convict on that forensic evidence, as well as all the circumstantial evidence supporting premeditation, without the camera, than they would rank up there with the 12 idiots from the Casey Anthony debacle. JMO

 

[reedus23]

Does anyone think KC Anthony will kill again? Misty Cummings hasn't killed anyone again. Scott Peterson hasn't killed again, yet we know he is guilty, Jodi Arias hasn't killed again but we know about that one too.
I guess what I'm saying is that just because these boys havent killed again in 3 yrs is not an indication of innocence. I also do believe had they been on the streets all these yrs that they would have.
We know Drew Peterson killed again. So is it just a one time thing for some and not others? Or is it once someone has killed they have the inclination to do it again? I'm asking this as a serious question.

I agree, the fact that they haven't killed again in 3 years is not an indicator of their innocence in this crime. I do believe it tends to show they do not suffer from the type of mental instability that some would argue led to the commission of these crimes. Also, just as the lack of additional murders doesn't establish innocence, the fact that there haven't been similar type murders while they were in jail doesn't establish their guilty.

As for your last questions, I'm no expert so take it with a grain of salt, but I think people, including killers, come in all shapes and sizes. Some will repeat and some won't. I suppose it depends on what is driving them to commit the act in the first place. John Douglas actually has some pretty good books out where he characterizes various types of killers and as part of that discusses the types that are likely to repeat.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Who would have been the one that was disciplined? Who were the witnesses? Who disciplined the child and which child? Just asking. Also, I have never believed the killings were satanic sacrifices, I know you werent implying that I believe that but I dont so just wanted to make sure that was clear. I know others do believe that scenario.

Terry Hobbs was known to have disciplined his child - often severely. His aunts have provided declarations as to that fact as part of the Pasdar case. (Declaration of Sheila Hicks Muse)(Declaration of Jo Lynn McCaughey) So, Steven could have been the one being disciplined. If TH found the boys playing in a manhole when they had been told not to do so, IMO it is entirely possible, given his past and subsequent violent behavior wrt to his son and others, that TH could have started disciplining Steven. It went too far, or maybe Steven accidentally was knocked against a hard surface, like a manhole cover, and Steven was unconscious.

If TH thought Steven was dead, then he would have wanted to eliminate the other witnesses to his deed - Christopher and Michael. What led so many astray in the beginning was the supposition that, since Christopher appeared to be the most severely injured, if one child was the target of the attacks, it would have been him. However, when later evidence of animal predation was presented, and Christopher's most graphic injury (the degloving) had another explanation, the injuries to Steven then became the most severe, casting suspicion on TH. Then, when mtDNA matching TH (and 1.5% of the population, to be sure, but how many of them stated that they were in those woods on May 5 -6, 1993?) was found in the ligature binding Michael Moore, not his step son, Steven, IMO, the circumstantial evidence against TH reached a tipping point. Again, IMO, the evidence against Hobbs is much stronger than that against Damien, Jason and Jessie.

 

[SweetT]

Was the ligature binding Michael Moore Stevens shoe lace?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Was the ligature binding Michael Moore Stevens shoe lace?

As Cappuccino pointed out, that has not been determined. However, fiber found in TH's knife has been declared similar to the black laces binding Michael Moore. Here is the preliminary report from MicroTrace.

 

[kyleb]

Then you need to go back and read 50% of the posts on all the numerous threads. You might disagree with them, but to say that no one has put forth arguments of reasonable doubt which addresses all the evidence is an inaccurate statement.

I've read quite a bit, in the threads here and on the Blackboard among many other sources, and I've yet to find such an argument. If you have actually found any arguments for reasonable doubt which address all the evidence, please stop simply claiming they exist and link whichever one you believe is best, be it in this forum or elsewhere.

Then the same holds true with your comments about the alibi witnesses.

Please quote me doing what you've accused me of here.

Was the ligature binding Michael Moore Stevens shoe lace?

Even if it wasn't, random hairs wind up being transferred between people all the time, so it's hardly surprising that a har from a father of one boy might wind up on the clothing of another boy who who were as close of friends as Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch and Michael Moore. Besides, the hair isn't necessarily Hobbs' anyway.

 

[Venom]

I have 2 things to say:

-About the lack of decomposition. Isn't it possible that the bodies weren't exposed for very long that decomposition just wasn't advanced? Wasn't it around 12 hours after death that they were found? The bodies would still be kind of fresh, right?

-About motive, why the WM3 haven't killed since. Maybe it was just a thrill kill. Maybe Misskelley and Baldwin just got caught up in something that Echols started?

 

[reedus23]

Terry Hobbs was known to have disciplined his child - often severely. His aunts have provided declarations as to that fact as part of the Pasdar case. (Declaration of Sheila Hicks Muse)(Declaration of Jo Lynn McCaughey) So, Steven could have been the one being disciplined. If TH found the boys playing in a manhole when they had been told not to do so, IMO it is entirely possible, given his past and subsequent violent behavior wrt to his son and others, that TH could have started disciplining Steven. It went too far, or maybe Steven accidentally was knocked against a hard surface, like a manhole cover, and Steven was unconscious.

If TH thought Steven was dead, then he would have wanted to eliminate the other witnesses to his deed - Christopher and Michael. What led so many astray in the beginning was the supposition that, since Christopher appeared to be the most severely injured, if one child was the target of the attacks, it would have been him. However, when later evidence of animal predation was presented, and Christopher's most graphic injury (the degloving) had another explanation, the injuries to Steven then became the most severe, casting suspicion on TH. Then, when mtDNA matching TH (and 1.5% of the population, to be sure, but how many of them stated that they were in those woods on May 5 -6, 1993?) was found in the ligature binding Michael Moore, not his step son, Steven, IMO, the circumstantial evidence against TH reached a tipping point. Again, IMO, the evidence against Hobbs is much stronger than that against Damien, Jason and Jessie.

I couldn't agree more. I have no idea if TH committed the murders, but I do believe there is more credible evidence that points towards him than anyone else.