Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

AICN Exclusive: Quint sits down with Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens to discuss their West Memphis Three documentary WEST OF MEMPHIS

As someone who followed Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky’s Paradise Lost series I’ve long been fascinated (and frustrated) by the case of The West Memphis Three. There has only ever been one other documentary that got me fuming as much as that first Paradise Lost film did, a particularly gut-wrenching film called Dear Zachary.

If you haven’t seen the Berlinger/Sinofsky documentaries or know much of anything about the case, the rundown is that in the early ‘90s three young boys were murdered in a small Arkansas town. Three local teens were arrested and tried for the crimes and based on questionable evidence convicted. Their case has seemed hopeless despite new evidence coming to light until very recently.

After 18 years in prison, the three men convicted for this crime, Jessie Misskelley, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols, were set free, Damien from death row. The State of Arkansas wouldn’t acknowledge their innocence, but the men get a chance at life and in Damien’s case he narrowly avoided being put to death for the crimes he was convicted of.

This topic is rife with controversy and red hot opinion. As it should be. It’s my opinion that these three men are innocent and I’m not alone.

Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens revealed they had contributed to the defense of these boys upon their release and I’ve come to discover that they’ve had a big hand in funding the search for and uncovering new DNA evidence.

While keeping a rather low profile about their exact involvement they just announced that they have completed work on a documentary called West of Memphis. Produced by Jackson and Walsh and directed by Deliver Us From Evil’s Amy Berg, the exact content of the doc is still a mystery.

I was able to sit down with Jackson, Walsh and Boyens to talk in great detail about their involvement in the case and how that inspired the coming documentary. They also shed a little light on what their documentary covers.

It’s a passionate discussion from them, filled with excitement over the release of these three men, frustration at the circumstances of that release and at the Arkansas Justice system as a whole.

 

                       Peter Jackson with Damien Echols

 

Quint: Do you guys just want to start off with your interest in the case? What compelled you to take a really active role in it.

Peter Jackson: We got interested in it the way that just about everybody who has become aware of the case, outside of Arkansas, through the PARADISE LOST documentary that came out about a year after the case. I believe it was about 1994 or 1995, but we didn’t actually see it until probably eight years ago when as documentary watchers we just happened to get the DVD randomly. We had never heard of the case before, watched it and became incredibly intrigued by the events as they unfolded in the documentary and of course afterwards you think “Well hang on, that was back in 1994, what on earth has happened since then?” You Google it on the internet thinking “There’s going to be some end to the story” and we were horrified to find that these guys were still in jail.

We actually couldn’t believe it even just based on what we saw in the Documentary, which was only covering the events around the trial. We couldn’t believe that in the intervening years there hadn’t been successful appeals, there hadn’t been a way that these guys should have been freed.

So we were initially shocked at the fact that they were still inside and this would have been, eight years, it would have been about 2005. Was it?

Fran Walsh: It was, yeah.

Peter Jackson: It was 2005, and basically we very quickly got in touch with people involved in the case, not the movie, but the actual case itself, to offer our help and support and that way we got to know Damien Echols’ wife, Lorri. I can’t remember how we initially got in touch with her.

Fran Walsh: I wrote to her.

Peter Jackson: You wrote to her?

Fran Walsh: Yeah, and we began a sort of email friendship actually about gardens and things mostly. (laughs)

Peter Jackson: Because she is a landscape gardener, yeah.

Fran Walsh: We both have a love of gardening, so…

Peter Jackson: But we were offering our help and support and anything we could do. It was interesting, because we have never done anything like this in our lives before really and the first thing we did was to basically learn through the defense really what had happened in the intervening years and the fact that the original lawyers had long since left the case and new lawyers had come in and in some cases new lawyers had come and gone and they were on their way to the third or fourth generation of lawyers, because these guys had no real money and were just at the mercy of the state.

So we sort of got our heads around the situation back in 2005 and we thought that the best way we could offer to help, because at that point PARADISE LOST had already got a lot of support for the case; it had generated interest from a lot of people all around the world and there was a certain amount of defense funding that was coming in the form of donations and obviously people like Eddie Vedder, Natalie Maines, Johnny Depp, Henry Rollins… A lot of people had sort of seen the documentary, the same as us, and gotten involved in it. We wanted to help in some tangible way, rather than just putting money into a defense fund as it were or lawyer’s fees, we thought “Well how can we actually help in a way that might be significant?” So we decided to offer our help with the defense by funding DNA testing. Some had happened, but the limited funding had meant that they couldn’t do all of the DNA testing that they wanted, so we started paying lab bills.

Fran Walsh: No, no DNA testing had happened. They had an order for DNA testing, but no DNA testing had happened.

Peter Jackson: So we offered to start picking up the lab bills of various American labs to do DNA testing. There was no real expertise in the pathology area. Alot of the state’s case that this was a satanic murder was really based on the injuries and the wounds that were apparently inflicted on the victims at the time of the killing. And so we thought, “Well, this should be looked at by expert pathologists,” because there was no expert pathologist including the guy that the prosecution put up who was certainly no expert.

Fran Walsh: He was not board certified. He was an assistant pathologist at the time.

Peter Jackson: Yes, Frank Peretti. So we felt that there hadn’t been the degree of expertise put into this, even though the state had looked at these injuries and said “Satanic Cult related killings,” we thought “Well, there wasn’t really an expert, a genuine expert who had vast experience and knew what they were talking about who actually made those claims.” So we started to literally, through the defense, we didn’t do this independently, but through the lawyers we started to fund people like Vincent Di Maio, Dr. [Michael] Baden…

Fran Walsh: Dr. [Richard] Souviron, Dr. [Werner] Spitz…

Peter Jackson: We literally tried to look at America’s best forensic pathologists and get them to look at the case. It was interesting, because they all came up with exactly the same conclusion independently of each other that these were nothing to do with satanic (ritual), that they were postmortem injuries that were due to the fact that the victims had been under water for several hours and there were turtles and various other wildlife in that area that would have actually caused these wounds and the pathologists that we saw, all of these guys said, “We see these a hundred times. This is nothing new to us.”

Quint: And that was essentially the prosecutions entire case against these kids. The knife in the pond, the satanic ritual and Damien [Echols] reads Stephen King and listens to heavy metal music.

Peter Jackson: And wears black T-shirts.

Quint: Yeah.

Peter Jackson: I know, it’s sort of primitive. What astounded us is that not only do you kind of suddenly think you are in the middle ages when you are reading some of that state’s case against the guys, you do think that at some point in this calmer heads would have prevailed

So we did the lab testing, then of course with the DNA results it was interesting, because partly we were looking at these DNA results and trying to analyze what they meant, at the same time we were trying to also work with the lawyers, the legal team, especially Damien’s legal team were the ones that we were attached to, because each of the boys had sort of a separate legal team and through Lorri Davis, Damien’s wife, we were sort of more connected to the Damien Echols team than the other two. But we started to work with the lawyers about what the DNA results actually meant, because the first thing that they meant, which was significant, is the state’s case that these three boys spent what must have been a reasonable length of time in theory torturing and harming these kids on the river bank, we found that there was not a singe trace of their DNA anywhere. There was lots of DNA, but not a single trace of any one of the three guys and that was the first time that that really had been confirmed. They kept analyzing hairs, they kept the fibers, everything that existed still… And fortunately there was a lot of DNA that had been actually kept over the years and was in the care of the state, which they allowed us to test very reluctantly. We just kept coming up with negative results all of the time, not one shred of the so called “convicted perpetrator’s” DNA was there, so that tells you something.

But of course we started to find DNA of other interesting individuals, some of which were unknown and some of which we eventually got identities for and that obviously led to a whole different aspect, because unfortunately one of the things that we discovered too as we were working on this is that the only way that you can really make a difference when you are trying to get convictions overturned or you are trying to change what seems to be a miscarriage of justice is it’s not enough to prove the innocence of these guys, because in a way you have to have very strong evidence to get guys out of jail… there was a lot of proof of their innocence, there were witnesses that said that they were at a wrestling match with one of the guys…

Fran Walsh: Eleven people with Jessie [Misskelley] in another town at a wrestling match that testified on his behalf.

Peter Jackson: At the time that the murders happened, but the state had no interest in that sort of testimony, so in a way trying to prove the innocence wasn’t actually going to get you where you needed to go, it was going to get you some of the way, but it was ignored back in 1994 and the state sort of continued to ignore it. So it forces you to have to try to point the finger at somebody else, which is not really where our interest was, our interest was simply trying to get these guys out of jail and let them get back to their lives again. So many years they’d been robbed by the state of Arkansas.

We worked with private investigators. We hired John Douglas who developed the behavioral science unit at the FBI. He’s retired and so we engaged him as our consultant and he went down to Arkansas. He interviewed people. We really got John heavily involved in the case, which was very interesting. He literally started to develop a profile of who might have committed this crime and so we ended up inadvertently, not even intending to, having to be sort of part of an investigative side of this rather than trying to prove the innocence, we were also actually having to look at who could have done it.

So the net result of all of this was our help and support and the debt of many other people, because obviously many other people around the world were also pouring in their support, we were hoping that it would result in some kind of a reassessment of the case. You know we didn’t ever expect that suddenly we would wake up and the guys would be set free. We though that the very best thing we were hoping for was a new trial.

Quint: Yeah, a fair trial.

Peter Jackson: A fair trial, and that was really what we were aiming for, but it became clear to us at the end of 2008 that Damien’s case, because again the three cases were on separate courses, that Damien’s case with all of the DNA evidence that we had gathered up to that point, we’ve actually gotten a lot more since 2008, but there was still some compelling DNA evidence at the end of 2008 that went before Judge David Burnett, who had tried the original case and had sat in on every appeal since and was in total control of the case essentially. He had his finger on it and at this point you could argue he could have had a vested interest in not wanting to be seen to be wrong, which is a whole other side of this case as well. But anyway the DNA evidence went in front of Judge David Burnett who really was not particularly interested in it and didn’t think it was worth consideration.

Fran Walsh: He was obliged to look at it under the DNA statute that Arkansas had introduced, I think it was in 2008, and so he had to look at this motion for a new trial based on the DNA, but he said he found it “uncompelling” and on that basis denied the motion.

Peter Jackson: So at this point Damien was now in a bad place. I mean he literally had exhausted all of his state appeals and really there was only one last stop for him, which was the Supreme Court essentially and then it was going to be not a very good outcome…

Quint: Because he was on death row, right?

Peter Jackson: He was on death row since 1994 and had been on there for a long, long time and his time was literally running out and so we thought “What the hell can we do? We have tried to help with DNA. We have tried to help with private investigation. We have tried to help with expert scientific forensic pathology. We have tried to help in whatever way we could. What else can we do?” You are literally feeling helpless, desperate, and so we thought “Well, we are filmmakers, let’s turn to the thing that we actually know how to do. Why don’t we put everything that we have learned” and we had learned a lot obviously working closely with the defense, a lot of things that have never actually been released, never been released ever, and we thought “Well let’s just start putting all of this into a documentary.”

We were just hoping that the last gasp effort would be one in which you would have to embarrass somebody, because we thought “There’s no way that they are going to let these guys out if it’s just left to a rational decision.” There is no rational decisions that seem to be made within the Arkansas system as related to the West Memphis case. So we thought “Okay, well if it’s not going to be rational, fair minded, thinking, what will get these guys out?” We thought “Well humiliation, embarrassment… There’s going to be a judge. There’s going to be a DA. There’s going to be an attorney general. There’s going to be somebody who’s going to want to run for Senate or want to run for Governor or something who is going to want to shut this down, so if we can make enough noise about it,” and it’s not just noise, it’s actually presenting the facts. That’s what you are doing, you are presenting the facts to the world about this appalling travesty.

Quint: You wanted to clear the fog.

Peter Jackson: If it’s not facts that are going to get the guys out, it’s going to be embarrassment. “Somebody is going to want to shut this down. Somebody is going to have a personal career interest in closing this down.” So we thought that’s how our movie could help. That’s exactly how we felt. Certainly the content is there and so we started to think about the movie at the point that Burnett said “no” at the end of 2008 and we thought “Okay, time to now turn our attention to doing a film of this” and we have been working on it ever since.

The first thing we did, because neither Fran or I could obviously direct the film as such, because it would have to involve a lot of time in Arkansas and we were busy on our other projects, but we had seen a documentary that a filmmaker called Amy Berg had directed, DELIVER US FROM EVIL, which we thought was incredibly powerful…

Fran Walsh: For shining a light on the Catholic Church.

Peter Jackson: (Laughs) Yeah, which we thought “The Catholic Church, Arkansas… They are two worthy targets for some rational consideration.” So we asked Amy if she would be interested and obviously before she could give an answer she had to learn a lot about the case and we got her all of the material we could so she could study it and eventually she came back to us and said, “Wow, this is amazing” and she would love to be involved.

Really Amy has been devoting her time to this fully for the last two or three years and she’s spent a huge amount of time down in Arkansas, all around the country actually tracking people down. She’s interviewed people that have never spoken about the case before and interviewed most of the major participants and also we have as part of it got access to a lot of the files, a lot of the forensic reports, a lot of the expert witnesses that Fran and I engaged. So really the film is weird, because it’s a strangely auto-biographical movie in the sense that we end up sort of being part of our own film, which we don’t particularly want to be, but…

Fran Walsh: Well, we are not in it.

Peter Jackson: No. Which is not the point of making it of course, but you can’t actually tell the story really without discussing how we uncovered some of the things we did.

Quint: Well and that’s another reason why you couldn’t have directed it.

Peter Jackson: I can’t interview myself, it’s impossible. Amy’s done a very good job grilling me. (Laughs) And we really have left her alone to put the film together, it’s not something we have been intimately involved in. Amy’s done all of the hard grafting. What’s happening at the moment, which we can discuss in a minute, it’s got an ending now, which it never had before, although in a way it’s an ending which I think still has to be looked at with a very critical eye, because in my mind the state is behaving now as they have behaved since 1994, which is to not actually address the facts of the case, but to simply run for cover.

Quint: It feels like they are doing the bare minimum in letting them free. It’s almost like you don’t want to slam them for taking at least a step in the right direction, but…

Peter Jackson: (laughs) Well the step in the right direction is they are no longer keeping three innocent men in jail, including one on death row, and they are allowing them to resume some form of life after nearly 18 years. Now that’s a step in the right direction. What they are not doing, in my opinion, which is fairly outrageous is they are not saying, “Does this mean that there might be a triple child killer on the loose?” There are three families of these boys, these victims, that lost young children and certainly two of the parents of two of the boys don’t believe that the three convicted are the real killers or killer.

There is a sense even amongst now the families of the victims that possibly the truth has not been discovered and yet the state now is apparently walking away from it, because the fact that they have released Damien [Echols], and Jason [Baldwin], and Jessie [Misskelley] under the conditions and terms they have means that they have no interest in looking at this case ever again, no interest and so therefore they have no interest in justice. That I think makes the film very interesting.

Quint: It’s somewhat bittersweet, because you have to feel good for these guys getting out, but at the same time you have to consider the families of the victims. They are still not going to have any justice for their dead children.

Fran Walsh: And the state is still saying, “We made no mistakes” when clearly mistakes were made.

Quint: The whole deal reeks of the State of Arkansas trying to save face.

Peter Jackson: But how does the justice system work when saving face becomes the principle of justice, you know?

Fran Walsh: The guiding principle.

Peter Jackson: It’s the difference between the American justice system and certainly the justice system in our country and the United Kingdom, which our justice system is based on… In America so many of the people involved in the justice system are elected officials and I always find that really strange and all the way through examining this particular case, which is my first experience of the American justice system, I’ve been amazed at how you expect a real genuine cold clinical fairness, when surely these judges and these district attorneys and these various other people, the pathologists…

Fran Walsh: Sheriffs… Coroners…

Peter Jackson: The coroners… They all have to have one eye on the popular opinion of the community and some times the opinion of the community, with all of the emotions involved, particularly in the deaths of three young boys, can be warped. So therefore justice becomes warped and the frightening thing is that these same public officials dig a hole so deep that they can’t back out of it. They haven’t actually got the guts or the moral fiber to back out of it.

Quint: Without killing their careers, yeah.

Peter Jackson: That’s a pretty flawed justice system in my opinion. In New Zealand or the United Kingdom, these people in our justice system aren’t elected; they are appointed by the government. The judges essentially work for the crown, don’t they? They work for the Queen essentially, sort of independent of the government, so governments can come and go and our judges are there to represent the Queen of England. (Laughs) So they are totally impartial and fair and they don’t have a sense… They don’t have to worry about getting votes from the population.

Philippa Boyens: But it’s not just the population. I think the population in Arkansas has been denied a lot of the facts, because what happens is there is a system of mutual benefit and protection. It is open to that happening under the system of elected officials, because you become party to each other’s interests and that’s been proven time and time again in multiple instances throughout that system.

Peter Jackson: What is interesting and I’ve been thinking a lot about it recent weeks as we have sort of been putting the finished touches on this film is that… Normally a judgment is made and it stays within a relatively small community, a local community, unless it’s a nation-wide kind of crime, but… And also the community relies on its officials to do the right thing. I know I do. I know when I see somebody convicted of murder I don’t really give it much thought, I’m assuming they made the right decision, but it’s interesting in this case, because you have a justice system in Arkansas that’s determined it made the right decision, whether it’s right or wrong its determined it did, and what’s happened is you now have an international community, which is now fed through the internet and social media and websites. It originated with, obviously with PARADISE LOST with Mara Leveritt’s book THE DEVIL’S KNOT and various newspaper articles, but it got picked up by the internet and so in a way it’s like the population, whether it’s the population of Arkansas, America, or the world, it’s the population turning to the officials and saying “Well, hang on, we are in justice as much as you do and we actually all collectively have examined this case and we think there’s enough of a doubt to at least retry these boys.”

So it’s interesting how you know it’s one example and there have been others, but not that many, where a population, a large group of people has actually turned around to the justice system and said…

Fran Walsh: “Not good enough.”

Peter Jackson: “Not good enough. Represent us better and if you don’t we are going to make a noise about this and we are going to kick and scream and yell as long as we need to.” I find that a very comforting thing.

Quint: It feels like an extra check and balance in the system.

Philippa Boyens: Yes, exactly.

Peter Jackson: I mean if something like that happened to me, God forbid, if I ended up being accused of something I didn’t do I would be hoping like hell there were people out there who were prepared to do that for me.

Fran Walsh: But the truth is, for most people in that position where they are incarcerated, there isn’t that hope. There is no voice and they are lost in the system and they are casualties of it and some are killed by it.

Peter Jackson: Yeah, I mean you’ve got to give huge credit to Joe and PARADISE LOST. I mean I do actually honestly believe that if PARADISE LOST didn’t exist that Damien would be dead now. I mean it’s a simple fact. That film has galvanized and activated so many people onto this case, but of course it’s just a movie about a case. There are so many other cases that haven’t got films made about them, so you have to wonder.

Look I’m not a social crusader, I never considered myself one. I just like cool movies, but this case has certainly been something that we have done totally independent of filmmaking for many years now.

Philippa Boyens: But you don’t like seeing people railroaded, you’ve got a very strong sense of justice and it’s so funny, because I always say that these guys had such a strong will against them to keep them there, to see them executed. They needed an equally strong will to help and that’s what I saw with these two, because it got pretty grim. It got pretty grim.

Peter Jackson: Yeah, I can’t tell you how many hours Fran has spent studying files, getting thousands of pages of documents and just spending literally weeks pouring through them. I mean huge.

Fran Walsh: Well, it’s a big case.

Philippa Boyens: Tough to follow, too. People do tend to think they know the ins and outs, but there seems to have been so much else that…

Peter Jackson: And Philippa and Seth made the trip down to see Damien and visit him.

Philippa Boyen: Yeah, in 2006, it was a really hot summer, really hot and talk about naïve, I had been to Louisiana, but I had never really been to the south and got off the plane in Memphis and drove to Arkansas and I had no idea. A girl from New Zealand? I had landed on another planet, but it was amazing and the people were extraordinary. It was wonderful, but going to the Varner Unit to actually go to death row, which doesn’t even exist in New Zealand, was extraordinary. And then when we met Damien, the coolest thing about it was… because there is trepidation, because I didn’t question that he was innocent, but that you would like him or that he would be the person you thought he was and he was that and beyond and one of the funniest guys you’ve ever met. He was absolutely funny and had an incredible spirit.

Peter Jackson: One of the things that we have done for Damien over the years is we have subscribed to magazines and had them just sent directly to his cell in death row in the Varner Unit in Arkansas and he’s become a film buff without ever being able to see the films, because he’s subscribed to Empire Magazine, so he’s getting Empire every month about film and without being able to go out and see the movies! He’s reading all about them, so he’s got a bit of catching up to do. Damien said the only film that they regularly screened for death row convicts in Arkansas is THE GREEN MILE!

Quint: No!

Peter Jackson: It’s true! He says they showed it to them over and over again.

Quint: Oh God. That’s literally worst movie you can show to some on death row! That’s so fucked up.

Peter Jackson: Tell me about it.

Quint: So, obviously I don’t know what Amy Berg is doing with it, but you’ve seen it come together. What’s the focus or tone of the doc?

Peter Jackson: Basically we are trying to examine what the state did in prosecuting the original case. We are trying to examine why they did it. We have been trying to look at the personal reasons why individuals involved in the prosecution of the case might have behaved the way they did. We are examining the various dodgy bits of evidence that were presented.

Quint: Is it primarily focused on the prosecution?

Peter Jackson: Well it’s focused on the 1994 case, the evidence, the events that led up to the case. It’s really a fairly clinical, analytical examination of the thing and then it goes obviously into the subsequent years, a little bit into the various denials of the motions and appeals, but that’s not so much of the film, because they just got turned down by Judge Burnett every single time anyway, so it was pretty predictable. (laughs) And then it goes into the social activism against the case that started with PARADISE LOST and then grew in the 2000’s with a lot of other people becoming involved and then ultimately our involvement and more then in terms of the pathology and the DNA evidence.

Fran Walsh: It’s tough when you present DNA evidence and they say, “No, that’s not important. That’s not compelling. Denied.” You think, “What is compelling?”

Peter Jackson: I know, because it’s weird because the whole theory of it is that these boys, the three perpetrators, the convicted guys were supposed to be in this vicinity, in the murder scene committing this murder, which involves all of this satanic rituals and stuff which would have gone on for quite some time and then they presumably left and they should have, in theory, left a lot of DNA there you would imagine. And every single bit of DNA was not connected to these guys. Now what does that mean? The state turns around and says “But this isn’t evidence of their innocence” and you say “No, it’s not, but it’s evidence that there is no evidence that they were there,” and it’s this weird kind of thing and the judge was just simply saying “You haven’t presented evidence of their innocence, so therefore I have no interest.” “Okay, well we have no DNA of those guys and we have DNA of other people who may or may not lead to the killer…”

Fran Walsh: Tied into ligatures…

Peter Jackson: “Obviously, if these guys are innocent, there isn’t going to be any of their DNA there and you are saying it’s not evidence…” It’s an incredibly frustrating thing.

Quint: So I guess because it wasn’t the trial where it was on the prosecution’s side to prove guilt instead of the defendant’s side to prove innocence, that made it easier for this Judge to shoot it down.

Peter Jackson: No, but the standard of justice was that if this evidence had been presented at the trial, would it have made the jury come to a different decision? That was what Judge Burnett denied. He essentially said, “Well no, in my opinion they would have achieved the same verdict.”

Philippa Boyens: It’s funny, Fran’s brain works in an amazing way, I remember that it’s like you had this little progression, you very analytically followed things and one of them was the lack of blood on the river banks. And I remember that you were looking at Peretti saying that they…

Peter Jackson: He was the state medical examiner.

Philippa Boyens: That something must have happened. It was quite a convoluted explanation and you just go “Well that doesn’t make any sense” and that’s when you started pulling at the thread of having other forensic pathologists and now it’s all coming to light.

Peter Jackson: I mean the thing that sums up the fairness of this case in my mind was that at Jessie Misskelley’s trail, and he in theory confessed, which is obviously if you study the…

Fan Walsh: He did confess, multiple times, but he changed his story every time.

Peter Jackson: He changed his story every time and confessed to other crimes as well, and so at his trial the defense got an expert on false confessions who had a PhD from, was it Berkeley?

Fran Walsh: Richard Ofshe is his name and he’s from Berkeley.

Peter Jackson: Yeah, and so he has a PhD from Berkeley. The prosecution offered up a guy called Dale Griffis, who also had a PHD in satanic killings, ritualistic killings, and…

Quint: Well, to be fair, that was my original major…

Peter Jackson: (laughs) And the judge decided that the jury, that the false confession guy with a PhD from Berkeley wasn’t worth the jury’s time to hear and denied…

Fran Walsh: He limited his evidence.

Peter Jackson: Yes, he limited his evidence in terms of what the jury heard, yet he allowed Dr. Griffis, or Dale Griffis, who’s PhD turned out to be a mail-order one, nothing to do with Berkeley or any other college, it was just simply one that he could buy off PHD.com or whatever, wherever you get these mail-order things, and he gave the satanic expert, Dale Griffis free reign to say whatever he wanted in front of the jury and that kind of sums up the primitive thinking that was at play in that trial.

Fran Walsh: Griffis was presented as the state’s expert witness.

Peter Jackson: He literally gave evidence saying about the significance of the full moon and the significance of the number “666” and you think “God, are we actually in a movie here? Is this the real world?”

Quint: I remember when I watched the documentary I actually started getting freaked out. The prosecutor’s closing argument was: “We found Stephen King books at his house. He wears black. He listens to heavy metal.” I’m just like “Shit, he just described me!”

Philippa Boyens: “Where were you on May 5th…?”

[Everyone Laughs]

Fran Walsh: Well, the cool thing about Damien is he stills enjoys the odd dip into Stephen King.

Peter Jackson: I know, we keep sending him the new Stephen King books as they have come out. And he still enjoys them too, so it hasn’t put him off Stephen King’s novels.

Quint: Thankfully Stephen King’s been writing very long books! So, are you having to be careful about pointing the finger at anybody else specifically?

Peter Jackson: Well, obviously we don’t know who killed these kids and unless the state really looks into it probably no one will ever really know, but it’s a very relevant part of the story: who the police chose to point the finger at in 1994 and who they chose to ignore. There’s certainly some potential suspects who they didn’t even interview back then; they didn’t even question them and you’ve got to ask, “Why did that happen?”

So there are various questions that we ask and some of them have answers and some of them don’t. You know we didn’t really want to focus on personalities or people too much, but we did track down a lot of people who were involved in the 1994 events, whether they were on either side… the prosecution, the defense, whether they were witnesses, the families of the victims. We spoke to a lot people who have had 18 years to rethink things, even witnesses that were essentially witnesses for the prosecution are now thinking “Well, hang on I might not have actually thought those things back then. I might have made a mistake” and we’ve got that on film. In some respects I think a lot of the people we had spoken to really makes you think “Why isn’t the state talking to these people?” It feels like we were doing the job that the justice system should have done.

In a way the movie presents what the case today would be against these guys as opposed to what the state managed to sort of excavate out of nowhere back in 1994 and it’s an interesting comparison.

Quint: What’s the plan with the doc?

Peter Jackson: We have financed it ourselves. We haven’t got a distributor, haven’t got a studio, haven’t got anyone involved. Fran and I have just paid for it all ourselves.

It’s still a very relevant thing, because it is not a closed case. I mean that’s the thing that everyone has to realize, just because these three guys are out of jail, the case isn’t closed, there is a killer or killers walking around out there and there are three little boys who were murdered who deserve some form of justice and their families deserve some form of justice.

Fran Walsh: And frankly the three who have been released deserve justice as well, because they have not received justice. Far from it.

Peter Jackson: They deserve some explanation for what happened to the last seventeen or eighteen years of their lives. This is a story of a lot of victims and it’s unresolved. In all ways it’s unresolved and it shouldn’t be; it doesn’t have to be and why is it? You know, the film asks a lot of “Whys?” and hopefully people will be interested enough to seek some answers.

 

 

 

Hopefully later this week I’ll have some of my talk with Lorri Davis, Damien Echols (both pictured above with Jackson) and director Amy Berg ready for you guys. It’s fascinating stuff and really makes me excited to see exactly what the documentary looks like.

Stay tuned!

-Eric Vespe
”Quint”
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:35 a.m. CST

    I thought Quint was the guy in the pics.

    by DidntPullOutInTimeCop

    This is awesome stuff! I'm more excited for The Hobbit than I ever was for LOTR.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Is peter gaining weight again?

    by Eric

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Chubby PJ > Skinny PJ

    by Jesse Kroh

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9 a.m. CST

    Easy on the profanity there, Quint.

    by MelvintheMopBoy

    "That's fucked up." None of the interviewees used any cuss words. Bad form breaking ettiquette.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    This talkback...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...gonna 'SPLODE!

  • From 1994 until now, it has never ceased to amaze me. This latest chapter is one I can't wait to find out about. I'll be keeping an eye out for a release date. I'm still stunned and overjoyed someone as big as Jackson has got involved as well. Does the film cover their release and life after to this point?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:16 a.m. CST

    What happned to fenderbender or gender whatever?

    by Mike Myers

    I kind of miss her BS. She really stirred the pot on this site.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:20 a.m. CST

    The wm3 were retarded hicks living in a retarded town

    by alienindisguise

    shit like that happened and happens all over the country on a weekly basis but until celebrities say something matters, it doesn't. That's Amurrrrka.

  • and you are bothered about someone using "fucked up", while talking about the case? That's all you have to say on the subject, after reading (I might be giving you too much credit) such an interesting interview? wow. Get off your fucking high horse, moron!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST

    @the_claxdog @yeahiluvcheezypoofs

    by Jessica white

    Oh, I'm here alright - silently observing. And judging.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    I'm not finished reading this yet but I'm hooked.

    by Darth_Kong

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    These guys were railroaded for sure...

    by ZodNotGod

    What bothers me is the fact that these guys are painted with a proverbial scarlet lettr on their names- M for murderers. How are they able to get a job? Are people like Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder, who have voiced support and shown up for interviews while tehy were in jail, going to help them out? What about the Hobbit lover himself, Jackson? I think Depp or whoever should cut each of these guys a check- $5 million or so and say here, it's the least we can do. No legal bills to be paid, no worries if tehy can not find jobs because of the case. If i had that kind of money, that's what I'd do.

  • ...but I look forward to watching the self-appointed know-it-alls tear each other apart over it in Talkback! GO!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST

    It all makes me very uncomfortable.

    by SebastianHaff

    Been following the case for years. Unfortunately, I am a natural skeptic, so I'm weary of both sides. The state CLEARLY botched the entire case from the beginning. <br><p> But as much as I like Rollins, Depp, and Jackson, we're talking about a bunch of rich celebrities who aren't exactly qualified to assess someone's innocence, just tossing heaps of money at these kids, and why? Because they saw a good flick that got 'em all riled up. <br><p> Again, fuck the state of Arkansas for blowing it so much in the beginning, but I don't feel like that's automatic grounds to just assume these kids are innocent. Read up on them. It's not as simple as 'oh they wore black and read Stephen King and shit.' These were not nice little boys. Not saying they did it. But it's a lot of fun to get outraged and feel smarter than the court by feeling you've figured out the case yourself. <br><p> I still think it was one of the victim's fathers and his friend who committed the murders. So don't accuse of me calling the WM3 guilty. I realize there's no DNA evidence of the WM3's presence at the murder site. But we've also established that all those satanic 'rituals' that would have left behind so much WM3 DNA, didn't actually happen, so of course there's no DNA. It's also been speculated that wasn't the murder site, merely the dumping ground. Their could have been DNA evidence wherever the actual murder site was. Though it's worth noting they found lots of interesting DNA at the dumping site that belonged to neither the victims or the WM3. Why have we not established whose DNA that was? I remember they said some was one of the victims' father's, but can't recall completely. Fucking scary.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:25 a.m. CST

    mr. nice gaius, or you could spend your time better

    by pw

    by watching the outstanding previous two documentaries and learning about it?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    One more thing.

    by SebastianHaff

    Why are all the rich celebrities so committed to freeing the WM3, then when they achieve their goal, just move on? <br><p> Why aren't Depp and Rollins and Jackson funding the search to find the actual killers? <br><p> This is why I was skeptical of all the celebrity involvement in the first place. They seem more interested in the political side of things, proving the 'man' wrong. For them I think it's just a social cause. <br><p> But those kids were fucking tortured to death, and if the WM3 are innocent, then there's a killer or killers walking free. Jackson actually seems annoyed that the court wanted him not to prove their innocence, but to find who did it if the WM3 didn't. He seems to be scoffing at the thought, like all that matters is freeing the three Stephen King fans. This has been the attitude for years. The WM3 supporters are only interested in saving the WM3, and have never shown any interest in finding who the actual killers are. That seriously disturbs me. <br><p> Fuck the WM3. I'm glad they're out of jail, because it does seem the evidence was concrete enough to convict them. But I don't understand why they get the spotlight. They're the least interesting part of the case. <br><p> I would like to see Depp and Rollins and Jackson continue funding the search for the child killers, NOT JUST THE MEDIA DARLING WEST MEPHIS THREE.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    'evidence WASN'T concrete enough!'

    by SebastianHaff

    Typo.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Focus on the real victims

    by Stimpy

    Whatever side of the fence you are on in this case we can't forget the real victims, the little boys who were brutally murdered. I realize if these 3 are innocent they too are victims, and should not have been imprisoned, but the little boys are what I am concerned about. 3 or 4 doc's made, millions spent, tons of hollywood support all for these 3 guys with a result. Right result? I'll leave that up to you, but it was a result. I wonder if the same attention was paid to the actual murdered boys, that too many times are casually brought up in these conversations, would there be results. It frustrates me that both sides have seem to forget about these innocent boys. Hopefully with these guys out the proper attention can be placed on finding out what happened to them. Hollywood if you have money to spend use it to help these families find out what happened to their children. The stepfather was a prime suspect start there.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Well said Sebastian

    by Stimpy

    You beat me to it. I agree 100% as I stated in my post there needs to be more support and attention focused on the little boys. They deserve to be more than an afterthought when people talk about the WM3.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Sebastian

    by Randall Flagg

    Not sure about Depp and Rollins, but Jackson IS funding additional research; that's part of the reason Echols went to NZ to visit him.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:57 a.m. CST

    BarryKnowles

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Oooooo, snarky!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    mr. nice gaius

    by pw

    It's what I do innit. Loves you really.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    What part of what Sebastian said was said well!?

    by pw

    Can't these dudes, Depp, Rollins and Jackson, highlight a misjustice in the system, without having to become the lead detective on the fucking case? ...Hold on a minute, let me call Columbo! ...oh...shit...

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Because in Sebastian's world

    by pw

    Movie Stars catch murderers and murder suspects star in "good flicks".

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by Stimpy

    I agree with what your saying. It is the responsibility of Arkansa to re-open this case without a doubt. They have to put the past judgements behind them and move forward with finding out what happened. The issue I see is that with all of the attention brought upon freeing the WM3 it has taken the focus off finding the truth. So many officals concerned about being called out to many ignorant people worried about egos I'm not sure, but the attention has shifted and it needs to shift back. I think that your right by saying Arkansa is satisfied that they found the killers and nothing else will happen, I would just like to see a concerted effort put forth that drives the same passion behind finding out the truth as it did in freeing the WM3. With them now free I hope that is what happens.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    That's the Choppah we know and love

    by pw

    You got a bit serious there for a second when you first hit the thread. FACT!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:33 p.m. CST

    This documentary is a total dick move....

    by The Tao of Joe

    Whether Jackson & Co. meant for it to be this way or not, the fact is that their WM3 documentary is a total dick move against the original filmmakers who created the "Paradise Lost" documentaries. It's no different than when Dreamworks made "Antz" against Pixar's "A Bug's Life." Not only are they publicizing this film at a time that will ultimately steal thunder from PL3, but they also interfered in the making of that documentary by not allowing its directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky to interview key players in the story. I know you are currently under their employ Quint, but I would like to see some discussion about the perception of PJ's doc competing shrewdly against the filmmakers who initially broke the WM3 store for nationwide audiences to begin with.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Barry and Choppah.

    by SebastianHaff

    That's not what I'm implying at all. I shouldn't have gotten involved on an Internet message board discussion of the topic. The minute one person disagrees even slightly, they've got to make the other guy look like an idiot. And then add cutesy little catchphrases like CHOPPED! <br><p> Forget it.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:39 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by pw

    ha I actually got that ref. Seen this WM3 update this month? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOiRVQ3ziE&feature=related

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Jesus Harold P. Esquire Christ. You know what's really sad?...

    by Darth_Kong

    I'd love to know if this so called satanic expert, Dale Griffis, when talking about the significance of a full moon, did he tell the jury MOSES was the leader of a MOON CULT? The word SIN means the MOON in I think it's the Phoenician Canaanite language. So for all these SUN-WORSHIPPING Bible Beating Christians, if your worshipping the MOON you are SINNING. Get it? Because you're not worshipping the SUN. It's all a play on words and terms to control your mind and the GENTILES JUST LOVE IT! So basically MOSES was a SATANIC LEADER when you get right down to brass tacks. Nuts. It's all nuts. I don't care what you tell me it's all NUTS.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    the tao of joe, what are you talking about!?

    by pw

    "not allowing its directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky to interview key players in the story"? since when? Would love to see your source of such nonsense. Stealing thunder from PL3? Oh yeah. We can't have more than one documentary at a time highlighting an issue. Our tiny minds couldn't handle watching 2 of them in the same year! Oh and it's nothing like when Dreamworks made "Antz" against Pixar's "A Bug's Life". Haha Give over, boy. You are talking shit!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Barry....

    by The Tao of Joe

    >>>Would love to see your source of such nonsense. Here you go: But behind the scenes she and the “Paradise Lost” filmmakers have butted heads over access to key figures in the case. Pam Hobbs, the mother of Stevie Branch, one of the murder victims, said in an interview that she was contacted last year by Mr. Berlinger, who sought to film new material with her for “Paradise Lost 3.” However, Ms. Hobbs had signed a life-rights deal with Elizabeth Fowler, a producer of the scripted feature, and was unsure if she could participate in the documentary. Ms. Fowler said that while an arrangement was being worked out that would allow Ms. Hobbs to be interviewed for “Paradise Lost 3,” Ms. Berg made her own deal with Ms. Hobbs that precluded her from speaking to Mr. Berlinger for his film. “The next thing I knew,” Ms. Fowler said, “Joe got quote-unquote shut down, and there was no point in continuing those conversations.” (Mr. Berlinger, Mr. Sinofsky and HBO declined to comment on this matter.) A lawyer representing “West of Memphis” also wrote an e-mail to the “Paradise Lost” team, denying a request to release Ms. Hobbs from its contract, adding: “Hopefully, you wouldn’t want to encourage or induce such third parties to breach their agreements.” A spokeswoman for “West of Memphis” said that Ms. Berg became aware of this correspondence in January and that HBO respected this exclusivity. The spokeswoman said in an e-mail that Ms. Hobbs “chose to work with us exclusively and felt committed to our investigation and our investigative film.” LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/movies/filmmakers-clash-on-access-to-interviews-on-west-memphis-3.html?_r=1 I love Hobbits and rat-spawned zombies as much as the next guy, but PJ's doc is a dick move.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by Darth_Kong

    I don't want the "Ain't-It-Cool News Talkback: The Home Edition". I want my CHOPPAH action figure with KUNG FU GRIP! ;)

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    the tao of joe, ok. Fair play. You have a link

    by pw

    I take it back. But the problem here isn't with Jackson. It's that Ms. Hobbs chose to work with them exclusively by signing shit and being paid for it. "Mr. Berlinger and Mr. Sinofsky made similar arrangements with other subjects". Since when did Berlinger and Sinofsky have exclusive rights to be the only ones to make a documentary on the subject? Either way, I'll watch them both. Because the most important thing is the findings, not really who got what. While paradise Lost has made people aware of the case, it looks like Jackson and Co have had a more active role in it all these last few years, maybe even leading to the release of the guys. At the very least, it looked like they were going to get a new trail because of it. But don't just take my word for it. I have a link and a quote for you. re Jackson's work: "a lot of the breakthroughs came from what they did" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HXqtAnZTcg&feature=related Don't be fooled in to thinking that the "millionaire monster" Jackson is trampling on some poor defenceless film makers. Paradise Lost is an HBO production. When making shit there is money exchanged and contracts are made. The fact some people decided to be interviewed by someone other than someone from Paradise Lost, is hardly grounds to accuse Jackson of any wrong doing.

  • sue the ever loving shit out of the both of them. The more I read about this case, the more clear it is that all three men were guilty as hell, and this whole thing is such a complete goddamn sham.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    cash907, um sue them for what?

    by pw

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Ask them about the Hobbit, dammit!

    by Raymar

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Can we get a doc on the Jena 6?

    by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform

    6 barbarians beat a white kid into the hospital and every idiot lib starts to cry over the poor blacks because the state aimed high with their sentencing, which happens in most trials (you aim high so that if it's reduced, it's closer to what you wanted originally). Had the races been reversed, so would the reactions. I've never been more sickened at the hypocrisy.

  • PERIOD. I would approve only in the case of absolute irrefutable evidence, which as most of you realize I'm sure is next to impossible. Yet we claim it or state that we believe it as jurors and judges across the nation. More people need to be educated in the truth of jury nullification and the lies that judges are allowed to tell jurors. There's very little justice in our justice system. It's the best we've got, they say. Stuff it. Do better. Or stop killing people. One or the other.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:02 p.m. CST

    cash907

    by gotilk

    *facepalm* I'm actually shocked. Check those sources carefully. Really. Do it if you're really interested in the case.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:04 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by gotilk

    Let me know how I could be a surrogate Polanski apologist. I wouldn't know where to begin. Should I start by taking a pro-rape stance or would that be insufficient? ( please know I'm joking)

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Cash907, was that post for real?

    by TheLastCleric

    And if so please tell us all what evidence has convinced you of their guilt. Because I've been following the case for 15 years and haven't seen a shred of proof.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Dick move and innocence

    by levithegreat

    1st - Don't get too caught up in the politics of movie making. Who gives a fuck whether or not someone talked to a or b? Or even if it is a dick move or not. The important thing is that BOTH of these teams of people helped get these 3 free. 2nd - To whoever said they were guilty. Have you actually educated yourself on this? If you have sent any kind of time or effort on researching this case the only way you could think that those 3 were guilty is if you were the actual killer and you are just pissed off that they may be coming for you now.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST

    I love Pete and all - but they're guilty

    by goofygoggles

    Thought they were guilty after seeing Paradise Lost 1. The 2nd Paradise Lost didn't even try to be objective and is a real embarrassment to the filmmakers. Completely for the boys innocence, it attempteg to portray John Mark Bayers as the real killer - a theory that the innocence believers don't even buy into anymore. It's true that the "black T-shirts and Metallica, Satanic ritual" theory of the prosecution was off base, but if you look at the testimony you can see what the killing was - an alcohol filled, bullying, sexual assault and thrill-kill. Read this: http://wm3truth.com/ this: http://www.capitalpunishmentbook.com/?p=638 and this:http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php Read the testimony, see the evidence and decide for yourself here: http://callahan.8k.com/

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Yeah

    by Iahael

    OK, I'm not terribly into this case, or well aware of all of the evidence, but the socio-political aspects of the cultural prejudices thrown at the WM3 indicate just how much Dominionist Christian beliefs warp our justice. This was pretty well established in the documentary. But... Why do these guys strike me as guilty? Is that just me? In the interests of full disclosure, I am a practicing Occultist (not a conspiracy theorist, like that other guy on here looking for illuminist lizard aliens in every new release) so I get the bigotry any alternative spiritual beliefs can engender, particularly in the bible belt. But damn it, I really have a gut feeling all of these celebs have been played by some uniquely American sociopaths. Man, I hope I am wrong. T.'.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:52 a.m. CST

    Iahael

    by pw

    Why do these guys strike you as guilty? I don't know. Weird thing to say. Because as you said yourself, you are not terribly into this case. But yeah, go on the gut feeling, rather than the evidence (or in this case lack of). It's thinking like that, that keeps the US in the dark ages and got 3 innocent kids locked up for almost 20 years in the first place! I don't know where you are from, but in this country (UK), the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" works pretty well.

  • Very strange thing for the state to do, let alone releasing a death row inmate supposedly guilty of murder. In fact, it's unheard of and a first in Arkansas. Why is that do you think? Because there was pressure in the media to release them? Bullshit! It is obvious that they are just trying to shut people up and cover their almighty cluster fuck of a mistake, while making sure they keep their jobs and positions of power in their community. The whole thing stinks of corruption and cover up! Jackson explains it best in the above interview - Peter Jackson: "In America so many of the people involved in the justice system are elected officials and I always find that really strange and all the way through examining this particular case, which is my first experience of the American justice system, I’ve been amazed at how you expect a real genuine cold clinical fairness, when surely these judges and these district attorneys and these various other people, the pathologists… Fran Walsh: Sheriffs… Coroners… Peter Jackson: The coroners… They all have to have one eye on the popular opinion of the community and some times the opinion of the community, with all of the emotions involved, particularly in the deaths of three young boys, can be warped. So therefore justice becomes warped and the frightening thing is that these same public officials dig a hole so deep that they can’t back out of it. They haven’t actually got the guts or the moral fiber to back out of it."

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:23 a.m. CST

    iahael - Sassy.

    by Darth_Kong

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:34 a.m. CST

    NOT guilty!

    by ZodNotGod

    I've had an interest in this case since i saw the first doc way back when. Fascinating. These guys ARE NOT guilty! The one kid, Kelly, was coercered into giving a BS confession, was diagnosed in grammar school with an IQ of roughly 75, I think, so yes, that qualifies him as “retarded.” Plus, his “confession” was wildly inconsistent with the facts; timeline was messed up, details did match up, most were made up. Yet the cops and DA ran with it because they were to inept and ill-equipped to crack the case themselves. The guys had no motives other than being “weird” in a hick town and not bowing down to the conservative, Christian values of the day. There is no DNA evidence, no witnesses, no motives, no physical evidence, no real confessions, no known conversations, nothing concrete, (like a bloody glove) that places those guys in those woods with those boys. If they fought with the boys, which is logical thing to consider, why didn’t one of or all of the guys have scratches on their faces? Why wasn’t their some clothing fibers, hair fibers, semen, saliva, somewhere, anywhere on their clothes or belongings? Those poor boys were brutalized tremendously, there should have been something to indicate that the WM3 took part in that, but no, there was never a “smoking gun,” or solid, perfect piece of evidence to pronounce them guilty. Also, what about the black man, that was seen on the day the boys went missing. He was covered in blood, shit himself in the bathroom of a Denny’s that was close to those woods. A few employees called police, twice, no followups were done, by that time, Kelly had made his BS confession… The so-called witnesses they did get were later to be proven fake, most of them made their stories up or were just seeking attention and publicity. Populic opinion had taken over by then. They didn’t have the murderers, but they had the next best thing, scapegoats. Good enough to satisfy said opinion, so its good enough for Mama justice. Who cares if they didn’t do it, they were poor white trash, one was a dummy, they all were from poor families with no connections or social standings. Case closed. My theory is- it was either the stepfather Byers or Ms. Hobbs now-dead husband. Whomever the creepy guy was that had all his teeth pulled at a very convenient time, in the second Doc I believe. The stepfathers knew their routines, they knew those kids liked to play in those woods and they knew how much time they had before they would be missed.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:36 a.m. CST

    RE: gotilk makes a good point...

    by ZodNotGod

    I'm usually one to say kill'em all, but this is solid case against the Death Penalty, at least in a case where there is so much gray and no solid evidence.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:39 a.m. CST

    why the wm3=guilty (hint: not black t-shirts and Stephen King)

    by Fred J Walsh

    The Jackson interview focuses on admittedly inconclusive DNA evidence (even he admits it does not point definitively to anyone else, when he says his team still does not know who did the crimes). Ignored is the the ample evidence as presented at trials, pointing to wm3 guilt. Did you know... 1. ... that Jessie Misskelley offered confessions not once -- but four (4) times, three of which were after his conviction and against the repeated pleas of his lawyer? His statements provide a plausible account of the crimes that are consistent with the findings of the medical examiner. SOURCES: Misskelley Confession to Deputies, 02-05-94 - http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html Misskelley Confession to his lawyer Dan Stidham, 02-08-94 - http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html Misskelley Confession to his lawyer + Prosecutors, 02-17-94 - http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html 2. ...that in the month between the crimes and arrests, Misskelley reportedly confessed to two friends BEFORE his first police questioning in June, 1993? SOURCES: Misskelley Confession to Buddy Lucas - http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-buddy-lucas-may-6-1993/ Misskelley Confession to Kim Floresca - http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-kim-floresca-june-2-1993/ 3. ...that in that same month between crime and arrests, Misskelley experienced hysterical crying fits, according to his father's girlfriend? And that he cried during his first statement to police and reported that he'd also visited the crime scene and cried there, as well? SOURCE: http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-crying-fits/ 4. ...that in the sentencing phase for Echols/Baldwin, a 500-page psychiatric history for Damien Echols was brought to bear by the court, documenting his multiple institutionalizations at mental health facilities and detention centers over the year leading up to the crimes? Places he was sent by his parents, for fear of his safety, their safety, and the safety of smaller children in their household? "Exhibit 500" documents Echols suicidal/homicidal impulses, his diagnosed psychotic disorder and dysthymia (depression), his professed beliefs in witchcraft and the power of blood drinking (including a documented incident of sucking at the wound of another inmate), his belief that a dead woman's spirit lived within him, which he could hear and hold conversation with (i.e. auditory hallucinations), and his deep-seated contempt for others and readiness to "blow up" and "hurt" other people. SOURCE: Exhibit 500 - Echols 500-page Psychiatric History http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html "Yes," you say, "but what of the physical evidence? There was no evidence of their guilt." The cases against the three weren't centered around physical evidence, as the bodies had been submerged overnight, and the ditch bank was by all accounts slicked down by the assailants, effectively preventing recovery of solid physical evidence. This is why Mr. Jackson, after having spent reported millions, still has no definitive idea who committed the crimes. The cases against the Three were mainly comprised of the detailed confession and a failed alibi, in Misskelley's case; and witness testimony (placing Echols near the scene in muddy clothing), admissions of guilt (to the "softball girls" for Echols, and to prisonmate Michael Carson, for Baldwin), impeached alibis via witness testimony, and a terrible showing on the stand by Echols, in the Echols/Baldwin trial. The physical evidence, such as it was, included clothing fibers tied to the households of Echols/Baldwin, and the "lake knife" found stuck blade-down in the mud at the bottom of an 8-ft deep section of lake directly behind Baldwin's house, that was testified to being similar to the one Echols carried, and consistent with some wounds, but which was not tied to the crimes with certainty. We'd all like to see incontrovertible physical evidence, but that doesn't happen in all cases, especially with a cleaned-up/compromised crime scene. Two juries didn't need that "center piece" of the puzzle, to see the general picture for what it truly was. Add on Misskelley's three detailed, post-conviction confessions -- offered against the repeated wishes of his attorney, and for which he's never since explained a reason -- and it's reasonably clear to me the judge and juries got it right. But whatever your own present impressions of the case, it's advisable to take agenda-driven films with a bag of salt, and to read case documents at Callahan.8k.com and decide for yourself...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:40 a.m. CST

    RE: sebastianhaff- Good point too...

    by ZodNotGod

    As I said, once the celebs get their momnet in the spotlight, what are the WM3 suppose to do? As I said, cut them a check so they can live a stress free life, its the least they can do...but they should be offering rewards to find the real killers, but i think the real killer is already dead.

  • uyi

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Darth_kong, ask fredjwalsh. He's cracked the case

    by pw

    A right little miss marple. We can ignore the fact that all he really did was give us edited versions of the prosecution's weak bs.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST

    How do you explain the multiple post-conviction confessions?

    by Fred J Walsh

    I'd like to hear someone try. They were completely ignored by the Paradise Lost films, as they did not fit the innocence narrative.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:44 a.m. CST

    barryknowles

    by Fred J Walsh

    All your posts in this thread amount to cheerleading the wm3 and making wisecracks. I like wisecracks. And some cheerleaders. But I also like substantive, document-supported arguments. I noticed that you did not cite anything in my post as fabricated or untruthful, just "weak." There is much to explain away before one can believe the innocence of the three. My post listed such items, a number of which were underplayed or omitted altogether from the PL movies, and concluded with an advisory to study the court documents rather than rely on the films of openly admitted wm3 advocates. How is that objectionable, and not sensible?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:06 p.m. CST

    @fredjwalsh On the Misskelly Confessions...

    by listen2cky

    First of all, Jessie denied being involved and recanted all of his confessions numerous times. Jessie continued to "confess" because he was misguided in thinking that he would benefit from it with a reduced sentence. His later "confessions" came after his trial, which he clearly would of learned more details about the crime. He also stopped confessing after the Judge made it clear to him that he would not get a reduced sentence.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    fredjwalsh

    by pw

    I've read everything you have over the years on the case, even the files on the net, the books, the films etc. and I have come to the opposite opinion you have. A lot of that confession after the fact to other prisoners is hearsay, and as we all know (here comes the wisecrack) from watching Judge Judy, that shit means fuck all in a court of law. Too right I'm cheerleading them. The justice system failed on a massive scale. Ok let's say for arguments sake that they are guilty. How do you explain 3 "hick kids" brutally abusing and murdering 3 boys and not leaving behind any DNA everdience on themselves, clothing or crime scene? Not a thing to connect them being there Sounds like the perfect murder to me and I find that very hard to believe. I think it's important to point out, that one of them had an alibi. 11 Witnesses reported him being at a wrestling match. One was a smart arse punk kid who, unaware of what the consequences were going to turn out to be, enjoyed fucking with the police and people in the community, by saying he did it, thinking he could fall back on his innocence. Fucking dumb if you ask me. One had the mental age of a little boy and didn't know what the fuck he was talking about or what was really going on under police pressure. I have a question for you, which I hope you can explain, because everyone that thinks they are guilty seems to sidetrack it. Why was damien echols, who was convicted of murder, the first person in Arkansas history, to be released from death row under the condition he and the other 2 plead guilty and had to sign an agreement not to sue? If it was an open and shut case and they were guilty in their minds, why would they be worried about them sueing? Hell, why did they even get released!? I'd be very interested to know what state/country you live in, because shit like that doesn't fly where I'm from. It's not always the best legal system, but it's certainly not some god fearing, hick town, kangaroo court bullshit. Because if you think they did it or not, that's what this case was from start to finish. So you can pull up all the prosecution files you like. They are a joke.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    darth_kong

    by Fred J Walsh

    Where we probably would agree: The Satanic crap is just stupid teenager stuff. Plenty of bored teens have dabbled with it, with not much consequence. But take a mentally ill teen on full government disability for his mental health issues, with a 500-page psychiatric history and three institutionalizations for suicidal/homicidal threats, psychotic disorder, audio hallucinations, dysthymia, a professed history of his own abuse as a child, and an admitted readiness to "blow up" and "hurt someone" etc, -- a psych profile never touched on in the films, by the way, despite its being offered to the filmmakers by Prosecutor Fogleman -- and then the silly satanic crap becomes the "seasoning" for a violent crime. Serious mental illness, rage, and alcohol were at work here, not Old Scratch. The logical fallacy some engage in: Satanic crap is ridiculous; therefore the case against the WM3 is ridiculous. One does not follow the other. The case was built largely on confessions, witness testimony, and impeached alibis -- not on "the Devil made 'em do it!" The latter is B&S (Berlinger and Sinofsky) talking, not the bulk of the court transcripts. However, it should also be noted that the image the films advocate of Echols as a gentle wiccan with no interest in this "Satan" character is also crap. In his psych documents he states the person he'd most like to meet is Anton LaVey, and his jailhouse writings while awaiting trial are peppered with references to Satan and Christ: "I see a perfect explosion, God's ammunition dump, going up in the flames of righteousness, Satan storming heaven, his artillery captain, a fiercely grinning fool with red flayed cheeks, Damien by name, never to be Michael Hutchinson [Echols' birth name] again. The end is near. Kiss your ass goodbye....People, it's time to pay up. Now is the Judgment. I am the Judge." "No more. Everyone will pay because everyone is too stupid to open their eyes. This is the final times and I am the new Messiah. Wake up and smell the crud faggets, I don't care wether you are saved or not. Everyone pays the price." "My body is changing but that medicine is making it happen a lot more slowly than normal. I am outgrowing my skin. I am eating packs of sugar and Koolaid to give my body the extra energy it needs to make its change. soon People will know I am the Christ just by looking at me." SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/writ_de_writings.html Again, I'm by no means suggesting that such writings are direct evidence of guilt -- they are not -- but merely trying to illustrate that the notion of Echols as a wiccan with garden-variety teen angst, rather than as a documented, seriously mentally ill individual, is a false one perpetuated by Echols and the PL films. Omitting the psych history of the chief accused is just one reason B&S's work should be looked at with a skeptical eye, a skepticism we should extend to ALL media presentations, especially those with an openly admitted agenda.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST

    The guys were no Angels, but they certainly weren't killers.

    by ZodNotGod

    Echols was a messed up kid, but again, SHOW the evidence that he did it!That any of them did it! NOTHINH puts those guys in the woods. No logical motive, motive period was ever revealed, confessed to...etc. Just because he may have given off the vibe of a killer doesn't mean he did it. Killer vibe, don't jibe.... He was a stupid mopey teen with mental issues, of course he will come off looking bad. I'm sure, considering where he was in life, he felt he had nothing to live for and didn't fight very hard for his freedom.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    I've been torn on this case all along

    by Jaka

    I don't necessarily think they're (all) innocent of all charges associated with this crime. But I don't think their cases were handled fairly in the slightest. According to the letter of the law, I THINK they should be free. But I'm still not SURE that they're innocent.

  • They can and they are.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:36 p.m. CST

    The authorities in that town were a pack of Barney Fifes...

    by ZodNotGod

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    barryknowles

    by Fred J Walsh

    Thanks sincerely for your response. I appreciate that we've both studied the case outside of the films, and have come to different conclusions. Re: The lack of DNA evidence connecting the three As discussed, the bodies were submerged overnight and some effort was taken to clean up the crime scene, which had also been compromised further during the search by family, neighbors, and police. Additionally, and less talked about, is that there does exist from all the testing certain partial DNA that did not eliminate the Three as potential donors. Nothing by any means conclusive -- but then Jackson et al admit they have no conclusive DNA pointing to anyone else, either. RE: Misskelley's wrestling buddies My understanding is that his alibi was impeached on the stand, that the dates did not check out. I do not believe he has any kind of unimpeached alibi for the hours in question (6-8:00PM). RE: Misskelley's alleged mind of a little boy This is a fiction, or at least an exaggeration, of the films, that promote Misskelley's "72 IQ" and "mind of a 5 year-old." Misskelley actually scored and 88 and 84 on earlier IQ tests, in the performance portions. SOURCE: Callahan dot 8k dot com /images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2165.jpg It wasn't until his lawyer had told him he might avoid the death penalty if judged mentally challenged that he started bombing with the much-touted 72 score. The footage of his lawyer Stidham explaining the benefit of being deemed mentally handicapped is in PL1. On the stand, their defense intelligence test expert had to admit the possibility Misskelley could have been malingering (faking malady). Still, Stidham continues to say Misskelley "has the mind of a 5-yr-old," a claim he repeats in Paradise Lost 3. That Misskelley's IQ has been significantly low-balled is evidenced by not only the above-sourced document of his previous 84/88 scores -- actually close to "average" 90-105 range, and certainly not "retarded" or even "borderline retarded" as the films say -- but also by the audio of Misskelley's confessions, where his cognitive and verbal abilities can be judged as most certainly non-retarded by any listener. Re: the Alford plea, agreements not to sue It should be noted it was the Defense team that approached the Prosecutor with its desire to plea, and not the other way around. If the defense truly had exculpatory evidence, why would they do this rather than wait until December for the evidentiary hearings? As to why Prosecutor Ellington allowed the deal, it seems to me he was inexperienced and thought he was doing his state a favor by choosing a middle way, in which the Three would be released with time served, with a guilty plea and a 10-year period in which certain stipulations were attached (employment, no association with felons, etc). At press conferences he stated that he had not read the complete case file (!!!) and yet he did in fact believe in the merit of the guilty convictions. However it was his professed understanding that the state might not be able to reconvict in a new trial, citing "degraded evidence" and "a witness who died." And I agree you are right to point out his consideration of the the possible financial repercussions of lawsuits for wrongful imprisonment. However I would suggest Prosecutor Ellington's reasoning was not well-founded, in terms of his chances of reconviction, and especially not morally well-founded, if he believes in the merit of the original convictions. And I think he will face his own political repercussions for his decision in future. I'm from the northeast U.S., and not a practicing member of any religion. Honestly I see the main players of this case on the WMPD, the Prosecutors, and the Judge as men attempting to do their professional best, within the constraints of 1993 technology and limited manpower. It seems to me the encouragement by the films to dismiss their work as that of bible-thumping morons is more about evoking regional bias in their audience, than it is anything to do with the reality of the policework and court proceedings.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:51 p.m. CST

    RE: CSI effect

    by Fred J Walsh

    Agreed, jaka, that there is too much reliance on the notion that no DNA=case goes away. How were any criminal convicted before the 1990's?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:11 p.m. CST

    @listen2cky re: Misskelley's post-conviction confessions

    by Fred J Walsh

    Thanks for the reply. I have never heard of a case where a wrongfully convicted person so repeatedly confesses -- once to police leading to arrest, once to deputies after conviction, and twice more in great detail, post-conviction, when their attorney is standing right next to them begging them not to. And that's not including the two friends Misskelley reportedly confessed his involvement to, before police ever got to him. Is there any documentation that shows Jessie was promised anything for his confessions? Also the suggestion that he learned details at trial and incorporated them into his post-conviction confessions supposes that he was at first so dumb and easily led that he confessed under duress, but later so smart as to be able to process all the details that were shown as evidence in his trial, incorporating them convincingly in detailed confessions. SOURCES: Misskelley Statements to Police, 06-03-93 - http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june2.html Misskelley Post-Conviction Confession to Deputies, 02-05-94 - Callahan dot 8k dot com /wm3/jmpc.html Misskelley Confession to Dan Stidham, 02-08-94 - Callahan dot 8k dot com /wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html Misskelley Confession to Dan Stidham and Prosecutors, 02-17-94 - Callahan dot 8k dot com /wm3/jmfeb.html Misskelley Pre-arrest Confessions to Friends - wm3 truth dot com /jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-buddy-lucas-may-6-1993/ wm3 truth dot com /jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-kim-floresca-june-2-1993/

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    never heard of the case.. will watch though

    by rakesh patel

    thanks for the write up quint. The fucking green mile. On death row. That is fucked uo.

  • For what it's worth, Prosecution's Brent Davis addresses this subject in Jessie's final documented confession on 02-17-94, saying that at the time no promises had been made to Misskelley. DAVIS: And that this statement will be tape recorded and a copy of that tape or that tape will be provided to defense councel and that at this point no promises have been made as to any deals or any benefits that will be granted to Mr. Misskelley as a result of this statement. SOURCE: Misskelley Confession to his lawyers Dan Stidham and Greg Crow, and Prosecution's Fogleman and Davis http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    hey kids, come visit Fred j Walsh's Facebook Page!

    by mjgtexas

    http://www.facebook.com/people/Fred-J-Walsh/1471389141#!/profile.php?id=1471389141&sk=photos He even has West memphis 3 Fetish coffee mugs as his profile photo! No hidden agenda here, no siree!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Fred J Walsh is clearly....

    by tensticks

    Not just a movie fan cruising AICN with an opinion on this subject; he's a cheerleader and supporter of the ANTI-WM3 movement (whatever his reasons may be) with an established presence for that position. Fair and good for him. But I think he came here spoiling for this fight with his opinions already dug in, and other posters fell for it. His facebook page--or the very fact that he HAS a facebook page and posts a link to another one called "wm3 truth" dedicated to the idea that the 3 are in fact guilty--clearly illustrates his agenda. So what Trump is to the Birther movement and Alex Jones is to the 911 Truth movement, apparently, Fred is to the WM3. Except, as far as we know, he's not famous. Good on ya, Freddy.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:31 p.m. CST

    BTW MJGTexas

    by tensticks

    Great job digging that up. In one fell swoop you singlehandedly undermined any shred of credibility or objectivity Fred may have been said to have.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Test

    by Fred J Walsh

    Just seeing if I can still post in this thread.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Re: my agenda or POV - didn't think I was exactly hiding it

    by Fred J Walsh

    Opening with a thread "why the wm3=guilty" may have been a tip-off. But ultimately my advice for folks to seek out court documents and trial transcripts at Callahan (dot) 9k (dot) com -- rather than rely on anyone with an agenda, whether a furry filmmaker or little old me -- is sound and reasonable. And I'm not sure how posting supported facts about this case undermines any credibility. If you'd like to challenge any of my reported facts I surely invite that -- but dismissing my posts because I've come to my own admitted conclusion after studying the case, that makes little sense.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    *Callahan (dot) 8k (dot) com . . .

    by Fred J Walsh

    And how did you ever figure out that fredjwalsh was... Fred J Walsh on facebook? You've outdone Miss Marple, Columbo, and his basset hound.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:40 p.m. CST

    by K. L. Keeney

    I don't understand why Peter Jackson has to step all over the Paradise Lost series. It doesn't seem like a respectful thing to do to someone's colleague in the film industry. After all, Berlinger and Sinofsy (HBO) were there first and it is because of their films that Mr. Echols (along with Baldwin and Misskelley) are out of prison. Redundant of Mr. Jackson, much? Who are all these people who are ready to swear that Misskelley was at that wrestling match? I thought that discovery for that incident was that there was no wrestling match that night? Now there was one? That he attended? Come on, now. It is one thing to state truth and another to misdirect and manufacture evidence. These guys (Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley) have already pled guilty to killing those 3 little eight year old boys. I'll chose to believe them on that.

  • you do have one and it goes far beyond just thinking they are guilty. Just a simple google of "Fred Walsh west memphis 3" show results of what a sneaky, creepy creeper you really are. It's nothing to do with truth or justice. "Fred [walsh] and Lisa O'Brien and their little cabal of lie-mongerers evidently have nothing better to do with their lives than to cling to stories that have been thoroughly debunked and to concoct new ones that just get more and more ridiculous as they continue. Jars filled with mutilated genitals... a pregnant 16 year old girl who went to the woods after the crime and singlehandedly scrubbed the woods and water of any trace of blood evidence... you name it, they've got it." Here we were thinking you were a movie geek that comes here like us, with just a different opinion on this particular story. Shame on you and good luck here, you are going to need it haha

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:37 a.m. CST

    re: Fred J Walsh's facebook page

    by pw

    "Still going on the Entertainment Weekly comment section. 64 comments now. Come on over, and offer a look and some Likes." David Koresh had more followers than you and he never left the house.

  • You would think the *innocent until proven guilty* mantra would be the ideal, but that's just bullshit. A generalization, but that Stephen King book used as *evidence* doesn't seem unusual. If a criminal suspect had the entire Walt Disney catalog on their home DVD shelf, and detectives found some obscure *dark-violent* DVD stuffed in the back somewhere, a state prosecuting attorney could wave that one DVD at the judge until they were senseless. Judges (not all) are easily railroaded by selective evidence and hand-picked facts used by prosecuting attorneys to create a sense of legal truth and the desired conviction trophy. The criminal justice system and the prison system (which is usually designed to make life as uncomfortable as possible and NOT rehabilitate) is an industry. The numbers of America's prison population as related to law enforcement activity as related to convictions ALWAYS support that policing and punishment creates more crime. Would professional crime detection, enforcement and institutionalization ever attempt to make itself extinct? Hell, no. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679752552/ I've read a few lengthy articles on this PJ documentary project now and it's yet another reality check that lawmakers and enforcers will slam the door shut on any public questioning of their efforts. They must see the general public as US VS. THEM, the inmates can't run the asylum, etc. A good Judge can see through trail rundown posturing. A good judge can slice witness fodder into Swiss cheese in two seconds. That such a complex legal journey was shorthanded by the lawmakers for public consumption as WEST MEMPHIS THREE sort of tells you the required attention span by the state investigators. So, yeah, a retrial with an on-the-ball judge (which shouldn't be a problem with the current media attention) should to be the way to go.

  • Again, my agenda was never hidden, with the opening post titled "why the wm3=guilty." And I didn't exactly "sneak" on here, nor attempt to mask my identity in another pseudonym. I linked to the page that has me posting in my Facebook handle -- so why all the back-patting about blowing the lid off that story? Most of all I don't appreciate you calling me a "lie mongerer," even second-hand. What lies have I attempted to tell, here? What facts of the case have I put forth without documentation to back them up? I take pains to speak honestly and with supportive documentation. (Completely false is the allegation that I've spread lies about "jars filled with mutilated genitals..." etc. That quoted post was an attempt to smear and discredit, via unsupported statements from someone who'd rather not debate factual points.) In our exchanges I've put forth supported arguments, with the occasional point that does not favor my side (e.g. quoting the current Prosecutor on his feeling that there was a chance he didn't have a strong enough case to reconvict). I've also been respectful and civil. What do you say we get back to debating the case or the movies? (I'm ready to debate other movies in other threads, if you'd like. I have strong opinions on the films of Joe Don Baker.)

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Fred, even the state of Arkansas, silently at least,

    by ZodNotGod

    Admitted they didn't commit the crime despite the ruling of them not being totally exonerated. I know what it states, but that says a lot when the only suspects are finally released, it was an attempt for all parties to save face even though we all know the state blew it and they know they blew it, they just didn't have to openly admit they botched it like a thylitimied baby. Fred, tell us, show us, prove to us all that the WM3 are guilty! What evidence? Where is the motive? Mental issues? Nah...he had emotional problems sure, but not mental, not enough to hurt anyone, himself maybe, but not anyone else. There was no motive...that Satan talk was just that...teenagers trying to get a rise out of the authority figures. Fred, not sure what your plan is, but its not working. I won't insult you, I will jsut say your dead wrong on this one.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:44 a.m. CST

    TalkBack of the year

    by I am_NOTREAL

    Hands down. Just like a studio, AICN holds the good stuff til year's end.

  • No. Let's not. I don't respect you or your opinions. I think they are warped. You came here to sprout the same shit you have been doing on every other pro WM3 article out there. I get it. It's your hobby. It's what you do. Save it for the 14 people who have joined your warped cause.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    zodisgod: "What evidence...?"

    by Fred J Walsh

    zodnotgod: "What evidence? Where is the motive?" Again, the cases against the three weren't centered around *physical* evidence, as the bodies had been submerged overnight and the ditch bank was by all accounts slicked down by the assailants, effectively preventing any recovery of such physical evidence. This is why Jackson, for all his millions, admits "Well, obviously we don’t know who killed these kids." His paid team of experts couldn't recover any DNA that was conclusive. What evidence was presented at trial? Misskelley was convicted based largely on his confession and impeached alibi. Echols was convicted due to witness testimony placing him near the scene in muddy clothing; witness testimony overhearing his admission to the crimes -- a statement he denied on the stand but now in interviews admits to making, saying he was only joking; an alibi which changed while he was on the stand and which was impeached by multiple witness testimony; and a generally poor performance on the stand, in which he came off as arrogant and deceptive, both re: his alibi and his interest in the occult. For Baldwin, there was witness testimony from his prisonmate who said that Baldwin had privately confessed to him by way of buddying up. Michael Carson was a jailbird, sure, but he also passed a polygraph and had stood nothing to gain from his testimony, as his time had been served. (Also it's likely some jurors took into account that the witness testimony placing Echols near the scene in muddy clothing had included in that sighting Echols' girlfriend Domini Teer, who in hair length and build was not unlike Baldwin at that time, i.e. it was thought that Baldwin may have been the one spotted in headlights, walking on the road with Echols.) The physical evidence, such as it was, included clothing fibers tied to the households of Echols/Baldwin, and the "lake knife" found stuck blade-down in the mud at the bottom of an 8-ft deep section of lake directly behind Baldwin's house, that was testified to being similar to the one Echols carried, and consistent with some wounds, but which was not tied to the crimes with certainty. We'd all like to see incontrovertible physical evidence, but that doesn't happen in all cases, especially with a cleaned-up/compromised crime scene. Two juries didn't need that "center piece" of the puzzle, to see the general picture for what it truly was. Add on Misskelley's multiple detailed, post-conviction confessions -- offered against the repeated wishes of his attorney, and for which he's never since explained a reason -- and to me it's pretty clear the judge and juries got it right.

  • The Opportunity is expressed in the changed and failed alibis of the three. The Motive is expressed in the psychological profile of Echols that the court brought to bear in the sentencing phase. Echols was not a typical mopey kid with teen angst. He was a seriously mentally ill person on full disability from the government for his mental health issues. That psych profile, Exhibit 500, consists of documents from Echols' stays at mental health facilities and detention centers in the year leading up to the crimes. Some excerpts: ---------------------------------------------------- "Mental status assessment" from East Arkansas Regional Mental Health Center from January 5, 1993, four months before the murders: "He admits being caught with Satanic items and with handwritten books about witch craft. Denies cult involvement. Is interested in witchcraft for past 8 years. He has tried to steal energy from someone else and influence others' minds with witchcraft. States that he was able to do these things. Describes self as 'pretty much hate the human race.' Relates that he feels people are in two classes - sheep and wolves. (wolves eat the sheep)." SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/042.jpg Progress note from same health center, January 19, 1993: "Reveals a history of abuse as he talked about how he was treated as a child. Denies that this has influenced him, stating 'I just put it all inside.' Describes this as more than just anger-like rage. Sometimes he does "blow up." Relates than when this happens the only solution is to 'hurt someone.' Damien reports being told at the hospital that he could be another 'Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.' When questioned on his feelings he states, "I know I'm going to influence the world -- people will remember . . .'" SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/050.jpg Progress note from same health center, January 20, 1993: "He's had three hospitalizations. Each has been associated with anger, thoughts of killing others and thoughts of killing himself." SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/051.jpg Progress note from same health center, January 25, 1993: "Damien explained that he obtains his power by drinking blood of others. He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner. This is achieved by biting or cutting. He states, 'It makes me feel like a god.'" "Damien describes drinking blood as giving him more power and strength. He remembers doing this as far back as age ten..." "Damien believes that there is no God. He feels that soceity believes there is a God because society is weak. He wants very much to be all powerful. He wants very much to be in total control . . ." "Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. The spirit was put inside him last year. He indicates that a month ago the spirit decided to become a part of him and he to become part of the spirit. This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband. When questioned about how he feels with this spirit or what the difference is, Damien is able to relate that he feels stronger and more powerful with this spirit. He has not seen the spirit but does hear the spirit. In addition, he reports conversations with demons and other spirits. This is achieved through rituals. He denies that he is Satanic, seeing himself more as being involved in demonology." SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/052.jpg ------------------------------------------------- The point of these Exhibit 500 excerpts is not that the psych history is direct evidence of guilt -- it isn't -- but rather that Echols' profile goes way beyond the film's portrayals of a misunderstood kid who just likes to wear black, listen to heavy metal, and dabble in wicca. It seems to me that Berlinger & Sinofsky were incredibly irresponsible in omitting this kind of well-documented information, relevant to the chief accused's state of mind at the time of the crimes. From a questionnaire dated February 2, 1993, just three months before the murders: "Describe any changes in these things since your condition began: 'I am a sociopath.'" SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/111.jpg

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Well you are not going to get it, Freddy boy

    by pw

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Walshy

    by pw

    I said you were a creepy creeper (which I stand by). Plenty of other people on other sites have called you out on lies. I just quoted one of many as an example. So no retraction for you, Freddy. Sorry, I have to call you Freddy. Fred J Walsh sounds far too much like a serial killer for my liking.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Now it is all starting to make sense!

    by pw

    What was your whereabouts on May 5, 1993?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST

    and...scene

    by pw

    Thanks for playing, Fredrick.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    barry, let me see if I have this right. 3...2...1...

    by Fred J Walsh

    Consider: Three children are brutally murdered. Two documentary filmmakers make movies sympathetic to the convicted murderers, films which completely omit (A) multiple detailed, post-conviction confessions, and (B) an alarming 500-page psych profile of the chief accused. (Omissions you'd be shouting about -- had the confessions/profile come from suspects other than The WM Three.) One guy -- among a growing number of others -- attempts to shed light on these omissions and other relevant case facts, in the belief that the convictions had merit. A belief shared by the Prosecutors, Judge, and 24 jurors who were at the trials and actually heard all the evidence. And...I'm somehow the creep? Unlike the filmmakers and the wm3 support movement, I have no hand out for your money. Just asking for your intelligent thoughts and consideration. Looks like that's in short supply. If I've presented anything other than facts in my posts, please point it out. If you can't -- and, be honest, you can't -- then drop the childish attempts to smear, and bring something substantive to the table. SOURCES: Misskelley Confession to his lawyer Dan Stidham, 02-08-94 - http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html Misskelley Confession to his lawyer + Prosecutors, 02-17-94 - http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html Exhibit 500 - Echols' 500-page Psychiatric History http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Fred is right

    by goofygoggles

    Those that believe the WM3 innocent cite Paradise Lost 1&2, those that think the boys guilty, it seems, have dug deeper, read the Callahan archive and not taken the films as gospel. For those that have done both, like me, I believe the WM3 to be guilty. Fred's cited the record and formed an opinion, why must you give him such shit for it? The WM3 being framed makes for a better story than than the boys being guilty (it's already spawned 4 films!), so psychologically people like to believe it. Especially people who feel like they've been mistreated and prejudged as the WM3 were for their black clothes and an interest in heavy metal and the occult. And hasn't everyone felt that way at one time or another? Believe what you want, but ignorance isn't evidence, and the evidence says they're guilty.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:19 p.m. CST

    I don't have facts...

    by XeRocks81

    But somehow I still think your posts make you sound like a know-it-all judgemental asshole Fred. Isn't that strange? Meaning even if you turn out to be right and those guys are murderers, you'll still be a dick and will be for the rest of your life.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 1:55 a.m. CST

    xerocks81 and the thing is this

    by pw

    it's not even about the case anymore for Fred. It's quite clear to see he has a personal dislike for the film makers and Saul Burke, who is head of the WM3 supporters group. He's so obsessed with making his opinion heard and trying to convince everyone else to change theirs, that he didn't even have the smarts to see I've been fucking with him for the last day or so. He has just continued to ramble on like a mad man. He will go back time and time again to 2 things. Firstly, the 500 page psych report. I was 19 in 1993. If I had be evaluated, I'd have been Damien Echols, My friends would have been Damien Echols. The psych report was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing. Turns out that was bullshit. It never suggested he was a killer with a violent past, just he was a confussed kid a bit lost inthe world. Who isn't at that age. The only thing he is guilty of in my eyes is liking Metallica heh Secondly, the post confession bullshit. I assume he is also including the post confession that an inmate in prison with Jason, told the court he had heard. He claims he walked up to Jason after their second meeting and just asked him, "between you and me, did you do it?". He then claims Jason revealed everything to him in complete detail. It turned out the inmate made it all up and was lying. A prison worker phoned up both the defence and the prosecution and told them it was bullshit and that a few weeks before, he had a conversation with the inmate about all the details of the case. The inmate almost used what he heard word for word in court. The prosecution knew he was lying beforehand and they still put him up on the stand to lie! Any other confessions he is talking about is under the assumption these killings took place in the woods. I think even a person with the most hardcore "guilty" stance, that knows the facts of the case, will be smart enough to work out the killings never took place in the woods at all. It's just where the bodies were left. So all that "running after him through the woods" nonsense that Jessie was forced in to confessing when arrested, didn't happen. 'Murder on a Sunday Morning' is a great documentary to watch to see just what tatics and lengths the police are capable of employing to try and make someone say what they want them to say. Personally, I think the paradise lost movies are quite heavy handed and very biased. Part 2 spends far too much time trying to suggest Byers (the step father of one of the kids) is the killer. It's quite clear he's just a bit mental and a media whore. Anyway, it didn't effect my opinion that they are innocent. It just made me aware of the case and to research more. I think Fred is an extremist, deluded and an internet attention whore, who wants his voice to be heard one way or another and this is the way he does it. If he thinks anyone really gives a fuck about him or his warped opinions on AICN, someone should point out to him that he so came to the wrong site for that ha. The fact he has just 14 people on his anti WM3 facebook page, after all the time he does spreading his nonsense online, says it all really.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Those three were and are guilty as fuck. *OPINION*

    by Isaac R.

    Damien's final words in that first docu. convinced (and chilled) me.

  • He all but admitted his guilt with that last sentence.

  • We may be a bunch of cunts, but we are not stupid. Welcome to AICN. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  • The psych report was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing.

  • The psych report was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:43 a.m. CST

    @barryknowles - TAKE 3

    by Fred J Walsh

    The psych report was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing.

  • Testing. 1..2..3.

  • The psych report was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:52 a.m. CST

    @barry - re: Exhibit 500 - (let's try this in smaller chunks)

    by Fred J Walsh

    [Exhibit 500] was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing.

  • The Five Hundred was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    @barry - re: The Fahv Hundy - still going up against a filter.

    by Fred J Walsh

    Barry, I've done nothing but offer case facts framed in my openly admitted opinion. I've not offered lies. I've no personal vendetta with Saul Burke (aka Burk Sauls), though, yes, I find his statements typically more rhetoric-based than fact-based. barry said, quote The Fahv Hundy was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing. This is incorrect. The Fahv Hundy was introduced in the sentencing phase, as the Defense attempted to get leniency for Echols by having a doctor testify to his mental issues. Of interest are the summaries of The Fahv Hundy, provided to the Defense attorneys: SOURCES: Callahan (dot) 8k (dot) com /images/500/006.jpg Callahan (dot) 8k (dot) com /500/007.jpg Callahan (dot) 8k (dot) com /500/008.jpg Callahan (dot) 8k (dot) com /500/009.jpg Callahan (dot) 8k (dot) com /500/010.jpg

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST

    @barry - re: Michael Carson, Luminol, the Byers Family, and our debate

    by Fred J Walsh

    [A]n inmate in prison...claims Jason revealed everything to him in complete detail. It turned out the inmate...was lying. A prison worker phoned up both the defence and the prosecution and told them it was bullshit.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:05 a.m. CST

    @barry - re: Michael Carson, Luminol, the Byers Family, and our debate

    by Fred J Walsh

    barry said quote: [A]n inmate in prison...claims Jason revealed everything to him in complete detail. It turned out the inmate...was lying. A prison worker phoned up both the defence and the prosecution and told them it was bullshit. You are correct that there was a prison counselor who worried that Michael Carson was simply using information he'd heard about the case to implicate Baldwin. However, Carson passed a polygraph. It is also my understanding he had served his prison time and had nothing to gain at the time of his testimony. SOURCE: Michael Carson Polygraph http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/mcpoly.html barry said quote: Any[one] that knows the facts of the case, will be smart enough to work out the killings never took place in the woods at all. This notion is contradicted by Misskelley's four confessions, as well as Luminol evidence. Luminol findings were not court admissable in 1993. However they were conducted by WMPD and are on record at Callahan's website. (Callahan's is a repository of court documents -- scans, transcripts, and audio recordings -- started by a Supporter in Denmark.) Additionally there is no evidence to support a transport of the bodies to the woods -- i.e. tire tracks, a bloody trail, witness sighting, etc. From the confessions, the Luminol, and the remoteness of the woods (from which sound was not easily broadcast), and the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd argue that the crime scene does point to being the crime scene. SOURCE: http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html (scroll down to Luminol) Luminol Findings Sketch: http://Callahan.8k.com/images/luminol/lum06.jpg Luminol Photos: http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html barry said quote: Personally, I think the paradise lost movies are quite heavy handed and very biased. Part 2 spends far too much time trying to suggest Byers (the step father of one of the kids) is the killer. On that we agree. Had the filmmakers consulted the statements of the Byers family -- Mark, Melissa, and Ryan Clark, brother to slain Chris Byers -- they would have seen it was impossible for Mark Byers to have participated, without his family having lied about them driving around all together looking for Chris during the relevant hours (6:30-8:00PM). The Byers report that at 7:30PM they bumped into a police officer (easily corroborated, one would think) and asked about filing a missing persons report, returned home and had police (officer Regina Meeks) at their house at 8:00PM. However this simple boring piece of information would have denied Berlinger & Sinofsky the "biggest, walking, talking red herring" in the history of documentary film. Another big reason I view their work with a very skeptical eye. SOURCE: http://Callahan.8k.com/documents_az.html (Statements of John Mark Byers, Melissa Byers, and Ryan Clark) barry said, quote: I think Fred is an extremist, deluded and an internet attention whore, who wants his voice to be heard one way or another and this is the way he does it. And you were doing so well, aside from the above mistakes, before returning to the smear. Barry, what in our exchanges has been uncivil, extremist or deluded? On my part, I mean...?

  • Sorry, it took me awhile to figure out the posting filter. Hijinx! Now let's get back to the case... --------------------------------------------- Barry, I've done nothing but offer case facts framed in my openly admitted opinion. I've not offered lies. I've no personal vendetta with Saul Burke (aka Burk Sauls), though, yes, I find his statements typically more rhetoric-based than fact-based. barry said, quote: The psych report was only used by the prosecution to support the claim this was a cult killing. This is incorrect. The psych report was introduced in the sentencing phase, as the Defense attempted to get leniency for Echols by having a doctor testify to his mental issues. Of interest are the summaries of Exhibit 500, provided to the Defense attorneys: SOURCES: http://Callahan.8k.com/images/500/006.jpg http://Callahan.8k.com/images/500/007.jpg http://Callahan.8k.com/images/500/008.jpg http://Callahan.8k.com/images/500/009.jpg http://Callahan.8k.com/images/500/010.jpg barry said, quote: [A]n inmate in prison...claims Jason revealed everything to him in complete detail. It turned out the inmate...was lying. A prison worker phoned up both the defence and the prosecution and told them it was bullshit. You are correct that there was a prison counselor who worried that Michael Carson was simply using information he'd heard about the case to implicate Baldwin. However, Carson passed a polygraph. It is also my understanding he had served his prison time and had nothing to gain at the time of his testimony. SOURCE: Michael Carson Polygraph http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/mcpoly.html barry said, quote: Any[one] that knows the facts of the case, will be smart enough to work out the killings never took place in the woods at all. This notion is contradicted by Misskelley's four confessions, as well as Luminol evidence. Luminol findings were not court admissable in 1993. However they were conducted by WMPD and are on record at Callahan's website. (Callahan's is a repository of court documents -- scans, transcripts, and audio recordings -- started by a Supporter in Denmark.) Additionally there is no evidence to support a transport of the bodies to the woods -- i.e. tire tracks, a bloody trail, witness sighting, etc. From the confessions, the Luminol, and the remoteness of the woods (from which sound was not easily broadcast), and the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd argue that the crime scene does point to being the crime scene. SOURCE: http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html (scroll down to Luminol) Luminol Findings Sketch: http://Callahan.8k.com/images/luminol/lum06.jpg Luminol Photos: http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html barry said, quote: Personally, I think the paradise lost movies are quite heavy handed and very biased. Part 2 spends far too much time trying to suggest Byers (the step father of one of the kids) is the killer.' On that we agree. Had the filmmakers consulted the statements of the Byers family -- Mark, Melissa, and Ryan Clark, brother to slain Chris Byers -- they would have seen it was impossible for Mark Byers to have participated, without his family having lied about them driving around all together looking for Chris during the relevant hours (6:30-8:00PM). The Byers report that at 7:30PM they bumped into a police officer (easily corroborated, one would think) and asked about filing a missing persons report, returned home and had police (officer Regina Meeks) at their house at 8:00PM. However this simple boring piece of information would have denied Berlinger & Sinofsky the "biggest, walking, talking red herring" in the history of documentary film. Another big reason I view their work with a very skeptical eye. SOURCE: http://Callahan.8k.com/documents_az.html (Statements of John Mark Byers, Melissa Byers, and Ryan Clark) barry said, quote: I think Fred is an extremist, deluded and an internet attention whore, who wants his voice to be heard one way or another and this is the way he does it. And you were doing so well, aside from the above mistakes, before returning to the smear. Barry, what in our exchanges has been uncivil, extremist or deluded? On my part, I mean...?

  • Corrupt, lying cops and a piece of shit, LSD dependant inmate is all you got? Please tell me it's not so. I think I'll go with the prison counselor on that one. Misskelley's four confessions were all over the place. He didn't even get the time of the murders right, let alone much else that wasn't suggested to him in a sham of a police interview. They didn't even start documenting or recording anything until 2 hours in to it! They are hardly a great source for truth and fact in any of this. The kid's parents were not informed, let alone a lawyer present. So I don't believe any documents you send links for from the state police (or on some kid from denmark's homemade website). I think we are done here. Once I start getting a headache from reading someones unreadable, mad ramblings (under a filter or not) it's time to call it a day and move on. The fact you are even under a filter raises suspicion.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:38 a.m. CST

    @barryknowles - re: confession inconsistencies

    by Fred J Walsh

    ------------------------------------------------- quote: Misskelley's four confessions were all over the place. He didn't even get the time of the murders right... ------------------------------------------------- Misskelley's confessions are largely consistent, especially with the medical examiner's account of the injuries (e.g., noting that one boy, not all, was genitally mutilated, and which boy; noting that one boy was cut on the side of the face, and which boy; noting that sticks were used in the attack). Even if one believes those details were fed by police, how do you explain the detail Misskelley consistently offers about chasing down the scout-uniformed boy and holding him? A detail he even reportedly told two friends -- before police ever questioned him. The two inconsistencies with regard to timeline and method of tying are later offered some explanation in Misskelley's post-conviction confessions, where he says he lied to, quote, throw em [the police] off track. However I'd also suggest that those two inconsistencies are possibly related to his impulses to minimize his involvement. He generally takes pains to make it known he left the scene once he saw the lengths of D&Ja's violence to the children (though it remains unclear exactly when he actually left). It's not at all uncommon to have inconsistencies/deceptions mixed in with an otherwise truthful confession. Seldom is the confession that offers the 100% truth, as the subject attempts to dissemble and minimize involvement. SOURCES: Misskelley Confession to Dan Stidham, 02-08-94 - http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html Misskelley Confession to Dan Stidham and Prosecutors, 02-17-94 - http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html Misskelley Pre-arrest Confessions to Friends - http://www.wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-buddy-lucas-may-6-1993/ http://www.wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-kim-floresca-june-2-1993/

  • ------------------------------------------------- quote: The kid's parents were not informed, let alone a lawyer present. ------------------------------------------------- That his parent was not informed is untrue. And he waived his right to a lawyer. The elder Jessie Misskelley knew *exactly* where the younger was -- having fetched his son for police, himself, that morning, and later that morning signing a form giving the police permission to administer a polygraph. Misskelley was mirandized multiple times on 6-3-93, and a copy of the rights waiver (e.g. waiving right to an attorney) is available at Callahans. You can also hear Misskelley confirming understanding of the rights waiver in the confession audio. SOURCES: Police timelog for the day of JM's first confession: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html Misskelley Rights Waiver - http://Callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/miranda_waiver.JPG Misskelley Polygraph Release Form - http://Callahan.8k.com/images2/jm_polygraph_release.JPG The truth of the supposed 12-hour interrogation - http://wm3truth.com/2011/10/a-short-history-of-the-12-hour-interrogation/ ------------------------------------------------- quote: So I don't believe any documents you send links for from the state police (or on some kid from denmark's homemade website). ------------------------------------------------- The legitimacy of the Callahan's site is acknowledged by wm3 Supporters and non-Supporters alike. It's simply a repository for scanned documents, with no editorializing or commentary. ------------------------------------------------- quote: I think we are done here... The fact you are even under a filter raises suspicion. ------------------------------------------------- Right, that some admin had a little fun, indicates deception on my part. You may want a refund on that logic class. Sorry to hear you're giving up. I'll not be around most of today, but if you change your mind, I welcome further exchanges later.

  • Misskelley's confessions are largely consistent, especially with the medical examiner's account of the injuries (e.g., noting that one boy, not all, was genitally mutilated, and which boy; noting that one boy was cut on the side of the face, and which boy; noting that sticks were used in the attack)

  • Misskelley's confessions are largely consistent, especially with the medical examiner's account of the injuries (e.g., noting that one boy, not all, was genitally mutilated, and which boy; noting that one boy was cut on the side of the face, and which boy; noting that sticks were used in the attack)

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST

    fredjwalsh

    by B Mo

    Misskelley's confessions are largely consistent, especially with the medical examiner's account of the injuries (e.g., noting that one boy, not all, was genitally mutilated, and which boy; noting that one boy was cut on the side of the face, and which boy; noting that sticks were used in the attack)

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 3:16 p.m. CST

    I'm trying to post this one last time

    by B Mo

    quote: Misskelley's confessions are largely consistent, especially with the medical examiner's account of the injuries (e.g., noting that one boy, not all, was genitally mutilated, and which boy; noting that one boy was cut on the side of the face, and which boy; noting that sticks were used in the attack) --But has it not been suggested that Peretti made his claims BASED on what Misskelley was saying. You cannot argue that Spitz has more experience in the field than Peretti and he suggested these wounds were post-mortem. And as for the Wmstruth claim that he said talks did the genital mutilation specifically, that is bull and if you watch the video on youtube even, it is clear that is not what he said about the castration SPECIFICALLY; he merely suggested dogs could have done some of the damage. quote: The elder Jessie Misskelley knew *exactly* where the younger was -- having fetched his son for police, himself, that morning, and later that morning signing a form giving the police permission to administer a polygraph. --Your documentation does not back up that claim. Those signatures are that of Jessie Jr. CLEARLY so. quote: The two inconsistencies with regard to timeline and method of tying are later offered some explanation in Misskelley's post-conviction confessions, where he says he lied to, quote, throw em [the police] off track. --Okay, wow, the problems with this. First off, there were not TWO inconsistencies in Jessie's first confession, I have personally counted no less that TWELVE times where he gets the timeline wrong. Secondly, this claim that he lied to 'throw em off' is absolutely, utterly ridiculous. Why would he have said anything at all then?!?! They had no evidence against him?!?! Now you're just being lazy here Fred. Two questions: 1) You seem to agree that these were likely not satanic ritual killing, then why did these three men do it? What possible motive did they have? All the evidence you point out to guide your INTERPRETATION of the case is from that original trial which was entirely based on the idea that these were satanic ritual killings. Your logic does not even add up and is completely contradictory (when you need it to be, of course) 2) Now, in all honesty, and I'm not judging you here, do you think that the police had an obligation to at LEAST investigate Terry Hobbs and Mark Byers shortly after the murders based on their criminal histories (bearing in mind parents are normally questioned in these cases)? And I'm not suggesting either man is guilty, I'm merely asking do you think the police had an obligation to the community to question those two men.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Mods

    by macheesmo3

    get these fucking agenda driven asshats off my movie site. It's one thing to be a member and state your opinion, it's something else entirely to have some assholes scour the search engines for wm3 driven dialogue every day and troll their filth around. These are the worst kinds of shit bags. They don't care about any victims or the FACT that 3 people were in jail for nearly 18 yrs for a crime they didn't commit. They only care about self grandizzement via the typical "conspiracy theory" mentality. only "they" now the truth , only "they " have the real answers only" they" understand the case fully. You and you little group of ass pirates are the worst kind of human beings. If I ever run across you i promise that all 6'3 230 pounds of me will deposit your heads in the others asspipe buddy. You are a fucking disgrace to humanity. I would ask the question "what if your child was in prison and innocent?" but I realize that (hopefully) your sort isn't allowed to breed. But then again, I'm sure you've drummed up some sort of troglodyte females along the way..... disgraceful slimeballs.....

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 4:10 p.m. CST

    fredjwalsh gotta eat!

    by DOYLE1

  • There was no doubt involved in Dear Zachary while thoughtful people can come down on either side of the WM3 case. Both great documentaries though that will stay with you forever.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Trial by the Crown!

    by captzeep

    A legal system answerable to no one but a hereditary monarch- that's the ticket! What could possibly go wrong there? Celebrities have a way of falling in love with people convicted of murder- Mumia being the worst case. Liberals are always intellectually dishonest, so I take them all with a grain of salt. The contempt for the American justice system in general, and the Arkansas justice system in particular, is galling. Defendants are far better protected here. I just glanced the the websites listed, but there is obviously a lot more here than our anti-death penalty celebrities would like to believe. For more takedowns of anti-death penalty BS, go to www.homicidesurvivors.com.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:34 p.m. CST

    captzeep

    by macheesmo3

    By I am by no meand efending the celebrity "pet projects " thing. (I think much of it is self serving). In the WM3 case I don't recall seeing much "look at me!!!" going on among those that favored their cause (much less than the Mumia debacle). I think that they mostly just contrbuted funds to help them try and get out of prison. I myself am pro death penalty. I don't see this case having much to do with any sort of anti-death penalty cause. It appears to me to be about a railroad job done by a bunch of scared people who responded to things they didn't understand with horrible judgement. It happens all the time. I just can't see how anyone could think they did it, when so much evidence points to Hobbs.... conveniently had his teeth pulled after the bite evidence was discovered... dna at the scene in the ligatures.... c'mon, a blind squirrel could find that nut.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    @macheesmo3 "what if your child was in prison and innocent?''

    by Isaac R.

    Let me ask YOU sir: What if YOUR child was found naked, beaten and stabbed to death in a ditch? I wonder whom you would be threatening then?

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:33 a.m. CST

    tao of joe

    by javery56

    I understand your argument, but this isn't about a film, this about peoples lives, which has happened to spawn a few films. If saving lives is a dick move then PJ is a massive boner. Besides that how many times did they reference Paradise lost and say that if it wasn't for that film Damien would be dead. Credit has been given where credit is due, like the guy said before, it was the individuals who signed exclusive contracts.

  • Many MANY people seem to have taken up this guy's BULLSHIT cause because in some misguided way they think it makes them "cool" or "hip". Let's not forget what this is really about Ok? Three TRULY innocent children were fucking butchered by this self-serving sociopath and his two buddies. Bitch and moan all you like about how "backward" you think the Arkansas justice system may be, but remember that they were found guilty. Period. Go back and watch that first docu. again. The sneering little fucker practically ADMITTED he had commited the crime ferfucksakes.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 2:36 a.m. CST

    isaac-r

    by macheesmo3

    I'd be ripping your head off you snivelling little tub of shit because you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Take you greasy semen encrusted fingers and crawl back to yer mom's basement and come up with a better plan before I cocksmack you from over the internet you waste of oxugen.

  • isaac-r's problem is with people who have the opinion they are innocent. His reason? because he thinks people are are doing it to be cool or hip because they saw Paradise Lost. I doubt the pathetic grub has researched the case outside of the documentary himself. Walsh's problem is with people or groups who support the 3 teens. His reason? He picked a side from the start and now it's his lifelong misson to counter anything positive relating to the WM3. Just like the state of Arkansas, he's gone too far with his bullshit and can't turn back now. Just look at the slimy mess this spineless creep has left behind him on this talkback.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:27 a.m. CST

    @barryknowles - You ignorant slut.

    by Fred J Walsh

    You don't know what you're talking about. You didn't know Misskelley's father was completely aware of his location the day of his questioning. You didn't know Callahan's website is a widely acknowledged legitimate website, a repository of court documents. You still imagine the crime scene is a dump site -- a misguided notion belied by the Luminol evidence, the confessions, and the absence of any indication of the transport of bodies. And you don't know shit about me and my motivations. You've been cheerleading the wm3 from the start of this thread. You demonstrated an emotional tie to this case from your first post, professing to be "overjoyed" that Jackson threw his hat in the ring. You've demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to debate case facts and have resorted to smearing me whenever you could. The last refuge of the ignorant. If I sound pissed, it's because I am. You've called me a lie-mongerer and a spineless creep, when I am neither. Argue substantively about this case, or fuck off.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 5:26 a.m. CST

    haha or how about you fuck off, Walshy.

    by pw

    I'm a regular here. You gatecrashed and outstayed your welcome a longtime ago. Yeah and I'm still overjoyed Jackson threw his hat in to the ring, because I'm looking forward to the revaltions to come, which will leave you with egg all over your creepy face. Hopefully you will then realise the remainder of your life you have dedacated to defending the incompetent legal system in Arkansas has been a complete waste of time. I believe, as you do, they thought they were doing their jobs. They were just so fucking witless and shit at it. It might seem like you talk a good game, but in reality you just parrot and mimic them in everyway. Just because you got bored of hassling people at www.wm3.org, don't think you can come here and parrot the same old shit. It must really sting for people like you to know after all your hard work trying to belittle or counteract any support for justice, that the WM3 are now free. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll hold up my hands and admit it (can quote me on that). Will you? Very doubtful considering the massive hole you have dug and are now sitting in. The funny part about all this, is that you don't even realise you just come across as a stuck up version of John Mark Byers. You are just embarrassing yourself now, you spineless, lie mongering, creeper. Jog on.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 5:42 a.m. CST

    @barryknowles - You ignorant slut.

    by pw

    and that ladies and gentlemen, is how you turn, i presume, the normally civil (although warped and deluded) fredjwalsh in to an angry, spiteful, AICN talkback whore. I thank you.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Barry does raise one important point fredjwalsh

    by Talkbacker with no name

    Why don't YOU fuck off and take your propaganda with you. Things are very different around here than other sites you are used to. You can't walk in with the mind of Fred Phelps and the voice of Louis Winthorpe III and expect to walk out straight.

  • ----------------------------------------------------- barryquote: I've read everything you have over the years on the case, even the files on the net... ----------------------------------------------------- fredjwalshyquote: Callahan's is a repository of court documents -- scans, transcripts, and audio recordings -- started by a Supporter in Denmark. ----------------------------------------------------- barryquote: I don't believe any documents you send links for from the state police (or on some kid from denmark's homemade website). ----------------------------------------------------- That you don't recognize the legitimacy of Callahan's website -- or even seem to recognize it at all, really -- undermines your first statement. Callahan's is THE recognized library on this case for Supporters and non-Supporters alike. It contains documents and court transcripts, with no opinions or commentary. http://Callahan.8k.com/ I'd encourage anyone to dig in and read it rather than take anyone's words -- my own, those of furry filmmakers and celebrities, and most certainly yours -- on faith.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:36 a.m. CST

    I know what the Callahan website is, you muppet

    by pw

    You missed the point I was making completely, dumbo. I just don't trust any documents you present to me from the state police, be it from a danish guy's website or their own fucking website. Seriously now, there must be something better you could be doing? This has run it's course. We don't agree. Move on to the next site you have targeted. haha "the mind of Fred Phelps and the voice of Louis Winthorpe III ". That's pretty spot on, Talkbacker with no name.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Good. Then read it and get back to us.

    by Fred J Walsh

  • here or anywhere else you like to slime around on the web.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 5:21 p.m. CST

    what say you FredjPhelps I mean walsh

    by macheesmo3

    about the DNA consistent to Hobbes and Jacoby (who he admitted visiting an hr before the boys were reported missing)? A hoax? What about John Douglas' assertion that this was not the work of 3 unsophisticated teenagers . (I think as the founder of the FBI's Behavioral dept he would now)....

  • macheesmo, thanks sincerely for the case-related questions. Re: DNA findings In PL3, the defense team asserts that the DNA from a hair found on the shoelace of Michael Moore's bindings has been found not to exclude Terry Hobbs, stepfather to Stevie Branch. (Note, this is not stepfather Mark Byers, upon whom suspicion was cast in the first two PL films.) Hobbs, along with 1.5% of the population, they say, could not be excluded as possible sources of the sample, which they admit is not conclusive enough a finding to implicate or prosecute Hobbs. However. Even if it could be proved to be Hobbs' hair, the not unreasonable explanation for its presence is it could be the result of a transfer, as the boys had played at Hobbs' house. Further along these lines, Moore may have been tied with Steve Branch's laces, thus increasing the likelihood of a transfer. (Consider: if the Ted Bundy case had a similar finding -- of a hair belonging to a victim's roommate found on that victim's shoelace. Would this mean that the roommate had committed the murder?) The quote, Jacoby hair, a term I use loosely, was, as I understand it, pulled from a tree stump at the scene and could only be narrowed to ~30% of the population, including Hobbs' friend Jacoby, who provided Hobbs' alibi for the relevant hours, aside from patches of time when Hobbs left Jacoby's house and returned. The above DNA info has been spun by the defense, PR teams, and Berlinger and Sinofsky as being, quote, exculpatory. To me it's a victory of marketing, rather than a victory of fact, that the new evidence has gotten traction as exclupatory or exonerating, when it is not. I give Peter Jackson credit for at least acknowledging the inconclusive nature of the DNA findings when he says, quote, Well, obviously we don’t know who killed these kids. Further, and what is not talked about: at least two partial DNA samples tested did not exclude the Three. Again this is not conclusive evidence by any means, either. SOURCE: Email from Bode Technology re: DNA on ligatures and penile swab http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_V-1_02.jpg Lastly, and this is admittedly *conjecture* on my part, but I believe it's possible the defense's tech people *could have* found some DNA implicating the Three. Purely a guess, here, but it's *possible* that such evidence may be what pushed the defense to approach the relatively new Prosecutor and request the plea deal, rather than wait for the evidentiary hearings scheduled for Dec 5, at which time it was to be decided if new trials would be granted. -------------------------------------------------- Re: John Douglas' opinions on the likely perps I do not know the full extent of his opinion, but I will say that a couple of details point to multiple perps: 1. Three different style knots were used in the shoelace bindings. 2. Multiple perps would have an easier time corralling three boys than one perp. -------------------------------------------------- PL3 (which I have seen, at a film festival) follows the same old formula: 1. Show the Three in a sympathetic light 2. Cast suspicion on a stepfather 3. Profit For years that stepfather had been Mark Byers. Now it's (spoiler alert) Terry Hobbs. I'd be more readily accepting of suspicion towards Mr. Hobbs if he'd had, say, a pal offer four confessions implicating him, witnesses who knew him by sight placing him in muddy clothing at the scene, witnesses telling of his admissions of the crimes, an alibi that was impeached on the stand, and a motive supplied in a 500-page psychiatric history. But ya knew I'd say something like that...

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 9:57 p.m. CST

    the psych profile is not a motive

    by XeRocks81

    And I think you've said so yourself, no?

  • Reveals a history of abuse as he talked about how he was treated as a child. Denies that this has influenced him, stating 'I just put it all inside.' Describes this as more than just anger-like rage. Sometimes he does "blow up." Relates than when this happens the only solution is to 'hurt someone.' Damien reports being told at the hospital that he could be another 'Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.' When questioned on his feelings he states, "I know I'm going to influence the world -- people will remember . . .'

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Oh I see

    by XeRocks81

    So it's not evidence it's just character assassination, gotcha.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:32 p.m. CST

    @macheesmo3

    by Isaac R.

    Wow. I've seen internet tough guys and I've seen internet tough guys. You sir take the fucking cake...lol No wonder you're so impassioned about defending psychos, you're in the fucking club!

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    and barryknowles...

    by Isaac R.

    The only reason you ever HEARD of this case is because of that fucking docu. so don't give me any of your sanctimonious horseshit. If you're really so concerned why aren't you out looking for the "real killers" right now you fucking scumbag? Could it be because somewhere in that little brain of yours you know that the real killers were already caught, tried and convicted? Fuck you very much.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 12:29 a.m. CST

    If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll hold up my hands and admit it

    by Isaac R.

    Good for you barry. I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the family of Damiens next victim.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 1:20 a.m. CST

    isaac_r, yes

    by pw

    I've said a few times I was introduced to the case via the doc. Never denied it or think that is even the point. As for looking for the real killers, I don't have the money, time or expertise to do such a thing. I'm interested in it all, but don't have the desire to be the lead detective on the fucking case. Also, your comment suggesting that i'm responsable for anything, if I'm wrong about my opinion, is a very strange thing to say. You don't make much sense, man. 6 kids and their families have already been victims, let's hope there isn't anyone in this sad debacle. You play the ratty sidekick of Walsh well though. If you ask him nicely, he might take you along on his next WM3 support website invasion.

  • The really sad thing is, with the killer still out there, there probably has been.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 2:02 a.m. CST

    I'm not playing anybody's sidekick pal.

    by Isaac R.

    I'm stating opinions. Allowed to do that ya' know, even when YOU don't agree with me. As far as me suggesting that you're responsible for anything, wtf?!? Where did I write that? I don't think you're responsible for jack shit buddy. You're just another asshole expressing an opinion on a message board. Just like me.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 2:41 a.m. CST

    Also one more thing Barry...

    by Isaac R.

    I want to apologize for having called you a scumbag in that earlier post. I'm sure that you're a decent guy and I hope you'll understand that I was a little upset...lol. I guess someone who has never lost a family member to or spent any time around the families of victims of violent crime (I sincerely hope you have not) would not understand the way I see the world. Having said that, I'm done with this thread. I mean c'mon...this is supposed to be an ENTERTAINMENT site right??

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 2:44 a.m. CST

    isaac_r

    by pw

    You are basically saying, in some bizzare fictional scenario in your head, that i'll be responsble for upsetting a non existent, greifing family further by admitting I was wrong, after Damien Echols has killed their child since he has been released. ...see? I told you it was weird! Come on, son. Let's at least stick to reality, even if we don't agree on the case.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 2:49 a.m. CST

    Whatever barry. I tried...lol

    by Isaac R.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 3:38 a.m. CST

    I accept the apology, isaac_r

    by pw

    and I take back the ratty sidekick comment. I know you have been a member here a while. I'm no way against new members in anyway at all though, that would be silly, but Walsh is the worst kind of person that trolls the internet looking for messageboards on the WM3 story. He's just anti WM3 support and I resent he picked here, a movie site, to push his tired and warped rountine. He reminds me of those nutty pricks who protest at abortion clinics and the like. Anyway, all kissed and made up now. I'm far from a decent guy online though. I'm horrible little cunt just like everyone else xxx

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 9:10 a.m. CST

    barry is far better at his smear campaign than at debating the case.

    by Fred J Walsh

    So far I'm a spineless creep, a gatecrasher, lie-mongerer, an infamous anti-gay activist, and now abortion clinic protestor. The truth is I'm fairly liberal, not anti-gay or anti-abortion, grew up on MAD Magazine, comic books and movies, and can fit in well around here, thanks. Again, please point out even one instance where I've lied. The only lies in our exchanges were bits of unsupported misinformation from you, barry: - That Jessie's father wasn't informed where his son was during his questioning. (His dad actually fetched him for police and signed a polygraph permission form, in the course of that morning.) - That Exhibit 500 was used by the Prosecution to claim this was a cult killing. (The Echols psych report was introduced during the sentencing phase, to help the Defense push for leniency.) - That "anyone who knows the facts of the case would be smart enough to know" that the crime scene was actually a dump site (granted, this is a theory, but there's the Luminol findings, the four Misskelley confessions, and the complete lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise). Debating case facts isn't your strong suit, so you go for the smear. You seem absolutely crushed to find out this site isn't your super sekret clubhouse... and immediately disdainful, when anyone shares their belief in the guilt of three convicted child murderers. Engage or don't, but drop all the whining that I'm even here. Makes you look like a [add your own favorite smear word]. When you're ready to get back to debating the case or the movies -- or other movies, elsewhere on the site -- I welcome that.

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST

    re: the crime scene - actual crime scene vs. proposed "dump site"

    by Fred J Walsh

    This page explains further why the "dump site" theory is a highly unlikely one -- despite what defense expert Brent Turvey suggested onscreen in PL2, or that it's what barryknowles claimed "anyone smart" who "knows the facts of the case" would naturally conclude. http://wm3truth.com/crime-scene-or-dump-site/ EXCERPT: Several factors pointed to “crime scene”. - The last known sighting of the three boys alive came around 6:30 pm, headed into the woods where their bodies were later found. - Many searchers were in those woods on Wednesday night and Thursday morning. It would have been very difficult for anyone to carry three bodies to the ditch without being seen. Why take that risk rather than dump the bodies somewhere secluded? And why also bring the victims’ clothes to submerge in the same spot? (Remember, the victims were hogtied after their clothes were removed.) - Police found no tire tracks, drag marks, footprints or any other physical evidence indicating a body dump. - One victim died from his knife wounds, the other two died from drowning. Were they beaten and drowned somewhere else, then brought to the ditch for disposal? Or were they beaten unconscious somewhere else, then brought to the ditch for drowning? The far more likely scenario: the beatings, knife attacks and drownings all occurred at the same location in one continuous attack. - Luminol testing left little doubt that the killings took place in the woods very near where the bodies were found. LUMINOL FINDINGS - SOURCES: http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html (scroll down to Luminol) Luminol Findings Sketch: http://Callahan.8k.com/images/luminol/lum06.jpg Luminol Photos: http://Callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST

    luminol

    by XeRocks81

    What does the luminol evidence really shows? I thought you said the crime scene had been srubbed clean?

  • There is no debate and it's impossible to take you seriously, if that's all you are going to spam at every opportunity. I fully expect to return in a few days to see you still here, repeating the same weak bs over and over like a broken record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITeuaqcpckc

  • LOL!! wow...dumb.

  • I'd also be interested in your answer to what luminol evidence really shows.

  • Dec. 12, 2011, 11:36 a.m. CST

    fart

    by Roger Moon

    I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

  • Dec. 12, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST

    fedjwalsh, answer away...

    by B Mo

    quote: Misskelley's confessions are largely consistent, especially with the medical examiner's account of the injuries (e.g., noting that one boy, not all, was genitally mutilated, and which boy; noting that one boy was cut on the side of the face, and which boy; noting that sticks were used in the attack) --But has it not been suggested that Peretti made his claims BASED on what Misskelley was saying. You cannot argue that Spitz has more experience in the field than Peretti and he suggested these wounds were post-mortem. And as for the Wmstruth claim that he said talks did the genital mutilation specifically, that is bull and if you watch the video on youtube even, it is clear that is not what he said about the castration SPECIFICALLY; he merely suggested dogs could have done some of the damage. quote: The elder Jessie Misskelley knew *exactly* where the younger was -- having fetched his son for police, himself, that morning, and later that morning signing a form giving the police permission to administer a polygraph. --Your documentation does not back up that claim. Those signatures are that of Jessie Jr. CLEARLY so. quote: The two inconsistencies with regard to timeline and method of tying are later offered some explanation in Misskelley's post-conviction confessions, where he says he lied to, quote, throw em [the police] off track. --Okay, wow, the problems with this. First off, there were not TWO inconsistencies in Jessie's first confession, I have personally counted no less that TWELVE times where he gets the timeline wrong. Secondly, this claim that he lied to 'throw em off' is absolutely, utterly ridiculous. Why would he have said anything at all then?!?! They had no evidence against him?!?! Now you're just being lazy here Fred. Two questions: 1) You seem to agree that these were likely not satanic ritual killing, then why did these three men do it? What possible motive did they have? All the evidence you point out to guide your INTERPRETATION of the case is from that original trial which was entirely based on the idea that these were satanic ritual killings. Your logic does not even add up and is completely contradictory (when you need it to be, of course) 2) Now, in all honesty, and I'm not judging you here, do you think that the police had an obligation to at LEAST investigate Terry Hobbs and Mark Byers shortly after the murders based on their criminal histories (bearing in mind parents are normally questioned in these cases)? And I'm not suggesting either man is guilty, I'm merely asking do you think the police had an obligation to the community to question those two men.

  • Dec. 13, 2011, 12:14 a.m. CST

    The statistical chance of there being NO DNA at the crime scene...

    by Razorback

    The statistical chance that the boys DID commit the crime while leaving NO DNA evidence anywhere is something like 0.0000000001. In other words, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE. Meaning, they definitely didn't do it. It is that simple. And that is why they were released. And they were released on condition of accepting the state had cause so that 1) they couldn't sue and 2) so the state didn't have to go to trial and lose so that 3) they could close the case and save face.

  • Dec. 15, 2011, 12:08 a.m. CST

    razorback

    by Talkbacker with no name

    Were you not listening to the people who say they are guilty? These 3 teenage monsters, killed and tortured the little boys, then cleaned the crime scene...in the dark. No mudbank or blade of grass was left unpolished, before these little maid's in manhattan were done with commiting the perfect crime. Genius!

  • Jan. 17, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    IT WAS HOBBS!!!

    by Sicuv Uyall

    Seriously, this just goes to show that only money can buy you justice.