Timeline of Events

[kyleb]

In fact, I only started reading up on this case about a year ago and they were already released so there's really never been a reason for me to take up their cause.

Perhaps you're confusing this case with a different one, as in your first few days of posting regarding this case you clearly stated that your primary interest was in answering the question of "should [Baldwin, Echols. and Misskelley] have been convicted in the first place", while relegating the matter of "did the three actually commit the crimes charged" as merely a secondary concern.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

State Advocacy List
As a victim of crime, you could be entitled to victim advocacy.

Advocates, both professional and volunteer, work to affirm your rights and to provide information and services to victims of crime.

Organized locally, the starting point is a victim advocate in the jurisdiction of the crime. If you are not able to determine a local victim advocate, you can refer to the state network for further information.

http://www.trynova.org/crime-victim/advocacy/list/

 

[reedus23]

Perhaps you're confusing this case with a different one, as in your first few days of posting regarding this case you clearly stated that your primary interest was in answering the question of "should [Baldwin, Echols. and Misskelley] have been convicted in the first place", while relegating the matter of "did the three actually commit the crimes charged" as merely a secondary concern.

That's not inconsistent with what I said.

 

[kyleb]

Any chance you'd explain how you consider limiting yourself to "only the facts as they were known at the time and the facts ultimately presented to the jury" during the trials of Baldwin, Echols, and Misskkely in order to answer the question of "should they have been convicted in the first place" of primary importance to the matter of justice for Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore?

 

[reedus23]

Any chance you'd explain how you consider limiting yourself to "only the facts as they were known at the time and the facts ultimately presented to the jury" during the trials of Baldwin, Echols, and Misskkely in order to answer the question of "should they have been convicted in the first place" of primary importance to the matter of justice for Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore?

I think in order to determine whether or not justice was served for Stevie, Chris and Michael, it seemed logical to first determine if the evidence supported charging and convicting the WM3. In fact, I didn't want to get tainted by others saying they were guilty or they were innocent. I wanted to determine if, IMO, justice was already served.

Those statements were made when I first started reading on this case and my goal was to try to get an objective review of all the "raw information" such as the investigative reports and what was actually used as evidence at trial. I didn't want to be tainted by anyone with bias, such as the documentaries or other spin sites. I also did not want to be tainted, initially, by evidence that had been discovered subsequent to the trials. Had I determined for myself that there was sufficient evidence to convict, I'm sure I would have naturally had an attendant feeling of it being wrong that the WM3 were released. Having determined that I did not feel there was such evidence, of course I also have the attendant feeling that an injustice was served on Damien, Jason and Jessie.

Then, the natural flow was to, in fact watch the documentaries, read the spin sites, consider the subsequent evidence to see where that points.

Bottom line to answer your question, it goes without saying that one cannot determine if justice was served for Michael, Christopher and Stevie without considering the WM3 and that was simply how I chose to approach tackling a mountain of documents. Starting from the day one and working forward.

 

[kyleb]

In fact, I didn't want to get tainted by others saying they were guilty or they were innocent.

But surely your perspective was tainted from the start by [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9950676&postcount=30"]your belief[/ame] that "rest assured, not a single sole on the state's side of the case would have ever voluntarily gone along with these pleas if they thought for one second that the WM3 were guilty of these crimes", eh?

Bottom line to answer your question, it goes without saying that one cannot determine if justice was served for Michael, Christopher and Stevie without considering the WM3 and that was simply how I chose to approach tackling a mountain of documents.

I'm still not following how you considered second guessing the convictions based solely on what is publicly available of the evidence back then of any notable significance at all, particularly when the convicted had been already released by the time you started looking into this case.

 

[primitivefuture]

All this nit picking of Reedus' word choice is off topic in terms of this thread asking for a timeline of events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

I'm still not following how you considered second guessing the convictions based solely on what is publicly available of the evidence back then of any notable significance at all, particularly when the convicted had been already released by the time you started looking into this case.

Long week. Not even sure what you're saying, but yes?

Back on topic of the timeline, can someone fill me in on timeline as far as TH is concerned? I've tried to go through his statement, his depo, Jacoby's statement, Pam's statements and I think that's it and I'm wondering if there are any other sources or witnesses that corroborate where and what TH was doing. And yes, I understand it's a moving target and keeps changing, but I'm trying to see if there is any parts of it that there seems to be a consensus on between all the different statements and working from there. For example, I think TH stated he got home from work between 3:00 and 3:30 and Pam said he got home from work between 3:00 and 4:00, so there is some consensus there to work off of.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I can't do better than this time line of events which is corroborated by documents on Callahan's, including documents related to the Hobbs vs. Pasdar suit brought in 2009. I will attempt to answer any reasonable questions. However, I don't want to take credit for the painstaking work done in the assembling of this time line, which is why I provided a link instead of a "copy 'n' paste" job. IMO, this time line is accurate and agrees with all credible evidence. IMO, Jessie's stories and TH's statements aren't credible. So, referring to any discrepancies from those documents is useless.

 

[Alyssa2013]

I think that's a really detailed, informative timeline. I know that there are still discrepancies but it does seem to cover mostly all of the key points. Going a little off-topic here and I apologize for doing so but I wonder why I've never seriously considered The Manhole Theory before. It makes so much sense especially when compared with the specific type of injuries found on the boys.

 

[Miranda!]

I all but came close to thanking Kyleb (!) for his antagonistic posts which served two purposes. One to expose him for finding the logic of reedus hard to fault. Two the fact that reedus then needed to re-present his standing in a simpler way which may well help other readers here!

As it might have caused a bit of confusion, I wrote the above instead!

As to the manhole - it does make sense and is, in my view, likely to have been a feature at some point that night. Just consider the 'road rash' marks, also called abrasion wounds and see how they 'fit' with the sort of rough trowel work on some of the drainage system!

 

[NCSleuth]

The issue is that I don't have much interest in humoring people who are obsessed with denying even such simple and well documented facts.

In the same interview where DE denied even living in West Memphis, he said if he went to West Memphis he would go to Walmart or grocery store.

Interviewer: So where these murders took place that was not an area–

Damien: "No, because that would have been a residential area, uh-uh-uh, a wooded area close to a residential area. You know there weren’t any um– if I went to West Memphis it would have been to do something like say go to Wal-Mart, you know? Go to the grocery store, something like that. So it wouldn’t have been a residential area anyway"

Was watching PL1 again yesterday and something jumped out at me. Reverend Tommy Stacy of Second Baptist Church says his youth director talked with Damien extensively after a revival and Damien told the youth director that he could not be saved. That he had a pact with the devil.

Anyone look up the address of Second Baptist Church? 975 E. Barton Avenue. That's in the same neighborhood the boys lived in. I can only assume revival was held at the church.

So, Reverend Stacy lying or DE lying? one of them has to be a liar.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah NCSleuth, that is a good question to answer, you needn't even look at others words to do so, but rather simply consult Echols own testimony at trial, where on his first day on this stand he insisted:

Q. Had you been in the neighborhood near where Robin Hood Hills was in that residential area -- had you and Jason walked in that neighborhood on a frequent basis?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever been in that neighborhood walking with Jason?

A. Not walking with Jason, but I used to live over there when I was young.

Q. How long ago would that have been?

A. When I was in kindergarten.

Q. In the year prior to your arrest had you and Jason or you and anyone else on more than one occasion walked around in that neighborhood near Robin Hood Hills?

A. No.

Q. That's also as true as everything else you have told us?

A. Yes.

But when the prosecution brought in a map on the next day, Echols sung a different tune:

2 Q. Now, yesterday I asked you some general questions
3 about, you had indicated that you and Jason quite
4 frequently walked around areas of West Memphis?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. I want to direct your attention on this
7 diagram -- in fact, let me circle it. This area right
8 in here which would be, I believe, east of -- is that
9 14th?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. It is east of 14th Street and south of the service
12 road and the interstate. In that particular
13 neighborhood, Market Street, Goodwin, in there, did you
14 and Jason frequently walk and roam in that area, the
15 same neighborhood where the three victims lived?
16 A. I think by looking at the map I would have had to.
17 Q. How often?
18 A. Probably in that area maybe twice a week.
19 Q. For how long a period?
20 A. A few years.
21 Q. How many?
22 A. Probably at least two years.
23 Q. All right. And that, when you told us yesterday
24 that you hadn't been over in that area, the residential
25 area near Robin Hood Hills, were you just not thinking
2800

1 of that particular area?
2 A. No, when you said "neighborhood," I just didn't
3 know what you are talking about, what that neighborhood
4 is.
5 Q. But when I specified that particular area, the
6 neighborhood that I circled, you were there two or
7 three times a week?
8 A. Probably an average of two to three times a week.
9 Q. And what would the purpose be over there? Would
10 you all just being walking around the neighborhood?
11 A. I had to walk through there to get from my house
12 to Jason's house. I would have to walk through there
13 to get from my house to Domini's house or anywhere in
14 Marion.
15 Q. Okay. Where were you living at the time?
16 A. At the time I was arrested, Broadway Trailer Park.
17 Q. Okay. Well, when you were walking over here --
18 this is the interstate, didn't you -- where, if you
19 could, show me where you lived?
20 A. Right here (indicating), somewhere along in there.
21 Q. So you lived south of Broadway?
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. And what time period was that? When did you quit
24 living south of Broadway?
25 A. When I was arrested.

And here's a map to better illustrate the details of what was discussed there:

 

[primitivefuture]

I'm looking at the Echols arrest report. Admittedly, the file is a bit blurry, but it looks like it says his residence was 604 south Lake Dr. East Marion, Ar. How was he lying when he said he didn't live in West Memphis? What am I missing?


Edited to add: sorry if this was already covered. I'm a bit under the weather/out of sorts.

 

[kyleb]

You're looking at Echols arrest report for burglary and sexual misconduct from nearly a year before he committed the murders, back when he did live in Marion. What your missing here is Echols' arrest for the murders, along with Echols' mental heath records from the day after the murders which lists the same address, and the many documented statements from Echols, his family, and his girlfriends from back in 93-94 which refer to him living with his parents in West Memphis, at Broadway Trailer Park, 2706 S Grove Dr.

 

[primitivefuture]

You're looking at Echols arrest report for burglary and sexual misconduct from nearly a year before he committed the murders, back when he did live in Marion. What your missing here is Echols' arrest for the murders, along with Echols' mental heath records from the day after the murders which lists the same address, and the many documented statements from Echols, his family, and his girlfriend from back in 93-94 which refer to him living with his parents in West Memphis, at Broadway Trailer Park, 2706 S Grove Dr.

Got it. Thank you. Like I said, I'm a bit out of sorts today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[primitivefuture]

You're looking at Echols arrest report for burglary and sexual misconduct from nearly a year before he committed the murders, back when he did live in Marion. What your missing here is Echols' arrest for the murders, along with Echols' mental heath records from the day after the murders which lists the same address, and the many documented statements from Echols, his family, and his girlfriends from back in 93-94 which refer to him living with his parents in West Memphis, at Broadway Trailer Park, 2706 S Grove Dr.

So the issue is not that he said he didn't live in W Memphis back then, he said that since his release, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

That's part of it, as is the fact that many people take his proclamations of innocence on faith, or at least give him the presumption of reasonable doubt, all while being either not familiar enough with or in abject denial of the body of the evidence in this case to comprehend such simple matters fact as where he in lived at the time of the murders and his familiarity with the area where he committed them. And I do understand that we all have rough days, but do you understand why I'm in no hurry to finish condensing the body of evidence down to timeline format here until those who've been requesting it can acknowledge such simple and well documented facts?

 

[primitivefuture]

That's part of it, as is the fact that many people take his proclamations of innocence on faith, or at least give him the presumption of reasonable doubt, all while being either not familiar enough with or in abject denial of the body of the evidence in this case to comprehend such simple matters fact as where he in lived at the time of the murders and his familiarity with the area where he committed them. And I do understand that we all have rough days, but do you understand why I'm in no hurry to finish condensing the body of evidence down to timeline format here until those who've been requesting it can acknowledge such simple and well documented facts?

I guess I can understand that, although I don't see people being as stubborn about this one fact as it seems like you are perceiving them to be. That's just me, though. And I think sometimes a lot of tones and attitudes get lost in translation when people type out their thoughts in an online forum. If you can resolve that issue with whomever you are referring to, I'd really like to see your proposed timeline of events.

I'm sure you've gathered by now that I feel fairly certain that all three of them are innocent. However, I didn't come to this decision lightly. And i have read just about everything available, as far as i can tell. On Callahan and "non-supporter" sites as well as "supporter" sites. Obviously, i haven't read every post on every message board, but I have read all the case documents(trial transcripts, statements, witness testimony,etc.) Admittedly, I don't have the greatest memory and it has been a few years since i read the majority of it. So sometimes i need my memory refreshed. Personally, I don't have a high opinion of Damien with regard to certain aspects of his personality. And honestly, I think I'd rather believe they were guilty than not. That would mean that I didn't think 3 innocent men will spend the rest of their lives being stigmatized after spending nearly two decades in prison for a crime they didn't commit. More important, i wouldn't feel that some as yet unidentified monster has gotten away with an unimaginable crime for this long. But when I look over the body of evidence, I don't see it. I know you feel strongly to the contrary. It's a heated subject because it was a horrible crime, but I hope that you can respect some of the differences in opinion around here. While I agree that many people do come to belligerent opinions of innocence after watching Paradise Lost(for example) and doing little to no further research, I don't see a lot of that here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

I guess I can understand that, although I don't see people being as stubborn about this one fact as it seems like you are perceiving them to be.

Well then please let me refresh your memory with some examples from this thread when I brought up the fact that Echols lies about where he lived at the time of the murders:

Why are you so obsessed with where Damien lived at the time of the murders?

So, some people believe that if Damien was duplicitous about "where he lived" at the time of the murders that that means he's the murderer? Why else . . . oh, never mind!

I don't know why Echols is your target. There are plenty of other people other than Hobbs who could have committed this crime as well, he just has the *strongest* motive. How about someone who lived near the Robin Hood Hills area? Or someone who lived in the apartments nearby? Still focusing your attention on Echols after all of this time is simply ridiculous.

I am curious to know what you see as the significance of where they, particularly Echols, lived. They all lived a good distance from Robin Hood Hills. Others certainly were closer. Robin Hood is certainly somewhere in between Echols and Baldwin. Is that the significance that you see?

I'm looking at the Echols arrest report. Admittedly, the file is a bit blurry, but it looks like it says his residence was 604 south Lake Dr. East Marion, Ar. How was he lying when he said he didn't live in West Memphis? What am I missing?

And here's one particularly notable example among many from previous threads:

Sorry. I pulled the wrong image. This is the arrest image for the murders. It is a West Memphis address. However, this was his natural parents' address. He was actually living with Domini in Lakeshore Trailer Park at the time, and Lakeshore is in Marion. It's all a little convoluted. Damien's natural parents had just recently returned to Arkansas from Oregon. He was dividing his time between his parents and Domini because Domini was pregnant, but it seems that he was spending more time with Domini. It just so happens that he was at his parents on May 7th, when he was interviewed, so apparently the police used that address on his arrest record. Just another example, IMO, of the sloppy work by the wmpd. So, telling Larry King that he was living in Marion, not West Memphis, was, IMO, Damien trying to be totally honest - not lying at all as you opine! And, as West Memphis and Marion are so close, it's really not that important.

Now again, surely you can see understand why I'm in no hurry to finish condensing the body of evidence down to timeline format here until those who've been requesting it can bring themselves to acknowledge the simple and well documented fact that Echols lies about where lived at the time of the murders?