Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[Rolfe]

One thing struck me forcibly at the very beginning of Paraside Lost. The bodies of the children were in rigor mortis. They had frozen in positions that very obviously weren't natural for where they were located when they were found. There is no doubt at all that they were moved to these positions after rigor mortis was well advanced.

I heard some investigators suggest that the absence of blood suggested the actual murders happened elsewhere, but nobody mentioned the rigor positions. It would have been interesting to examine these positions and come up with some idea of how the bodies were lying while rigor was setting in. Obviously it's hard to tell just looking at the film but I wonder if they were actually tied to chairs or something like that.

They've been transported to that location after rigor mortis was well set in - I'd say more than a couple of hours, maybe three or four hours after death at a minimum. It must have made them relatively difficult to transport, given the positions, even though they were only little boys. One of the investigators suggested that the absence of mosquito bites on their exposed skin suggested they'd been killed indoors - mosquitoes don't bite dead bodies - and if I'm right about them being killed while tied to chairs and left tied to the chairs until rigor mortis had set in then that would also fit with them being killed indoors.

I recall other people saying earlier in the thread (or perhaps in the previous thread) that the wood was just the dumping place, but I didn't expect it to be so blindingly obvious just from a single cursory look at the way the bodies were lying.

And yet there was all that questioning of the forensic pathologist about whether he could have dissected the skin off Chris Byers's penis in the dark or in the water or in a cloud of midgies or all three. Come on guys, there's no way they were killed there. They should have been looking for somewhere indoors with bloodstained chairs.

 

[John Jones]

There has been a lot of discussion about their bodies and rigor mortis. Some have suggested that the boys were hog-tied the way they were to make them easier to carry from the murder scene to the creek where they were dumped.

There is a nearby storm drain deep enough to require a ladder. There has been speculation that this was where they were killed, but the cops never checked it.

The cops fished the bodies out of the muddy water and left them on the bank decaying in the sun for hours before anyone called the coroner. These are the same cops who tracked muddy water from the crime scene all over the washroom at the Bojangles restaurant, and lost the blood samples found there.

The coroner failed to take temperatures of the bodies to determine a time of death, and said he couldn't tell the degree of rigor owing to the way they were hog-tied.

Meanwhile, the cops didn't sandbag the creek for hours, allowing evidence to be washed away.

Did I mention rampant incompetence?

 

[Strawberry]

Miskelly was beaten down. I don't think he was pursuing any reward. After the 12 hour interrogation, and coerced confession to some horrific murders (and absent legal counsel), he asked "Can I go home now?"

Is that pathetic or what?

I disagree, I think Misskelley was very much chasing the reward and I also think he was very much under the influence of Vicky Hutchinson at the time. She's the one who decided to "play detective" and got Jessie to introduce her to Damien so she could tape him in the hope he'd say something incriminating. When that didn't work, I guess the WMPD just bypassed Vicky and went straight to her connection with Damien by interviewing Jessie.

Sure, the police pressurised him into making a confession but they were pushing at an open door. All along, Jessie's confession reads like someone who is claiming to have witnessed something incriminating rather than someone who is claiming to have taken part in a murder, but being 17 and not too bright, Jessie didn't know where to draw that line and incriminated himself instead.

In Jessie's defense, I think he was probably caught up in the Satanic Panic of the time himself, and probably thought Damien really was the killer. So given that he's dirt poor and has no prospects in life, where's the harm in getting a nice big sum of money by helping to put a killer behind bars by telling a few lies, that was probably his thinking.

 

[John Jones]

I disagree, I think Misskelley was very much chasing the reward and I also think he was very much under the influence of Vicky Hutchinson at the time. She's the one who decided to "play detective" and got Jessie to introduce her to Damien so she could tape him in the hope he'd say something incriminating. When that didn't work, I guess the WMPD just bypassed Vicky and went straight to her connection with Damien by interviewing Jessie.

Sure, the police pressurised him into making a confession but they were pushing at an open door. All along, Jessie's confession reads like someone who is claiming to have witnessed something incriminating rather than someone who is claiming to have taken part in a murder, but being 17 and not too bright, Jessie didn't know where to draw that line and incriminated himself instead.

In Jessie's defense, I think he was probably caught up in the Satanic Panic of the time himself, and probably thought Damien really was the killer. So given that he's dirt poor and has no prospects in life, where's the harm in getting a nice big sum of money by helping to put a killer behind bars by telling a few lies, that was probably his thinking.

That reward was offered by Damien Echols's defense team. You're saying that Misskelley was being paid by Damien's defense team to implicate their client. That makes no sense even in West Memphis.

 

[Strawberry]

That reward was offered by Damien Echols's defense team. You're saying that Misskelley was being paid by Damien's defense team to implicate their client. That makes no sense even in West Memphis.

There was a reward on offer before Damien was even arrested, so I think you'll find you're mistaken there.

 

[Rolfe]

There has been a lot of discussion about their bodies and rigor mortis. Some have suggested that the boys were hog-tied the way they were to make them easier to carry from the murder scene to the creek where they were dumped.

There is a nearby storm drain deep enough to require a ladder. There has been speculation that this was where they were killed, but the cops never checked it.

The cops fished the bodies out of the muddy water and left them on the bank decaying in the sun for hours before anyone called the coroner. These are the same cops who tracked muddy water from the crime scene all over the washroom at the Bojangles restaurant, and lost the blood samples found there.

The coroner failed to take temperatures of the bodies to determine a time of death, and said he couldn't tell the degree of rigor owing to the way they were hog-tied.

Meanwhile, the cops didn't sandbag the creek for hours, allowing evidence to be washed away.

Did I mention rampant incompetence?

They obviously didn't have a clue.

I'd be interested to read some discussion about the rigor, because to me the interesting point isn't the timing but the positions of the bodies. I've got a lot of experience watching rigor set in in animals that have recently died, and the incongruity of seeing a body in a very natural position lying where it died - or was placed shortly after death - and then the grotesque appearance of that very same position when you move the body and try to do things with it is striking.

Seeing these bodies my immediate question is, how were they positioned while rigor was setting in to get them in these positions? I don't see anything round there that would explain this, and a storm drain doesn't explain it. Look at the way the legs are fixed apart, with the knees flexed. To me that says sitting on a chair. The first thing I'd want to do with these bodies, before rigor passed over, would be to imagine how they were positioned and supported in that position when rigor was setting in.

Has anyone speculated about this?

 

[Rolfe]

Here is a discussion of the documentaries.

That's probably the most coherent discussion of the possibility that the three were actually guilty that I've seen. Even then it doesn't amount to much more than, they weren't as innocuous as they make themselves out to be, Damien was a bit into satanism, and they didn't have alibis. And since somebody did it and there isn't another very obvious somebody, then we should regard them with a rather suspicious gaze. Interesting that Jamie Bulger was murdered by a couple of ten-year-olds only about three months before this incident, so the innocent youngsters bit (Jason especially) isn't going to play especially well.

There is of course the possibility that the police incompetence failed to secure evidence that would actually have pointed to the guilt of the accused. As it is, I'm happy to leave it at, we don't know what happened and there is no way these three should have been convicted on that evidence. I think their subsequent behaviour tends to the view that they didn't do it, also.

John is right that Damien was his own worst enemy. Smart-aleck and narsissistic. That hair-combing thing in the dock was preposterous. But that article is a reasonable case for "possibly guilty but certainly not beyond reasonable doubt" and makes a good point about one-sided advocacy films.

What do people think about this?

 

[John Jones]

There was a reward on offer before Damien was even arrested, so I think you'll find you're mistaken there.

Misskelley tried to collect a reward by confessing, and implicating Echols and Baldwin? It still doesn't make any sense.

 

[John Jones]

They obviously didn't have a clue.

I'd be interested to read some discussion about the rigor, because to me the interesting point isn't the timing but the positions of the bodies. I've got a lot of experience watching rigor set in in animals that have recently died, and the incongruity of seeing a body in a very natural position lying where it died - or was placed shortly after death - and then the grotesque appearance of that very same position when you move the body and try to do things with it is striking.

Seeing these bodies my immediate question is, how were they positioned while rigor was setting in to get them in these positions? I don't see anything round there that would explain this, and a storm drain doesn't explain it. Look at the way the legs are fixed apart, with the knees flexed. To me that says sitting on a chair. The first thing I'd want to do with these bodies, before rigor passed over, would be to imagine how they were positioned and supported in that position when rigor was setting in.

Has anyone speculated about this?

Not that I recall.

 

[John Jones]

That's probably the most coherent discussion of the possibility that the three were actually guilty that I've seen. Even then it doesn't amount to much more than, they weren't as innocuous as they make themselves out to be, Damien was a bit into satanism, and they didn't have alibis. And since somebody did it and there isn't another very obvious somebody, then we should regard them with a rather suspicious gaze. Interesting that Jamie Bulger was murdered by a couple of ten-year-olds only about three months before this incident, so the innocent youngsters bit (Jason especially) isn't going to play especially well.

There is of course the possibility that the police incompetence failed to secure evidence that would actually have pointed to the guilt of the accused. As it is, I'm happy to leave it at, we don't know what happened and there is no way these three should have been convicted on that evidence. I think their subsequent behaviour tends to the view that they didn't do it, also.

John is right that Damien was his own worst enemy. Smart-aleck and narsissistic. That hair-combing thing in the dock was preposterous. But that article is a reasonable case for "possibly guilty but certainly not beyond reasonable doubt" and makes a good point about one-sided advocacy films.

What do people think about this?

As I stated earlier, I got most of my information from the newspapers and TV news before the documentaries were even released. My default position was that there must have been some evidence that didn't get reported, because they shouldn't have been convicted on what the news reported.

 

[Strawberry]

Misskelley tried to collect a reward by confessing, and implicating Echols and Baldwin? It still doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense if you read Jessie's confession. I think the phrase most often repeated is "and then I left". Jessie thought he was giving a witness statement about what he saw in the woods, not a confession to triple murder.

Its what happens when stupid people try to be clever.

 

[Strawberry]

That's probably the most coherent discussion of the possibility that the three were actually guilty that I've seen. Even then it doesn't amount to much more than, they weren't as innocuous as they make themselves out to be, Damien was a bit into satanism, and they didn't have alibis. And since somebody did it and there isn't another very obvious somebody, then we should regard them with a rather suspicious gaze. Interesting that Jamie Bulger was murdered by a couple of ten-year-olds only about three months before this incident, so the innocent youngsters bit (Jason especially) isn't going to play especially well.

There is of course the possibility that the police incompetence failed to secure evidence that would actually have pointed to the guilt of the accused. As it is, I'm happy to leave it at, we don't know what happened and there is no way these three should have been convicted on that evidence. I think their subsequent behaviour tends to the view that they didn't do it, also.

John is right that Damien was his own worst enemy. Smart-aleck and narsissistic. That hair-combing thing in the dock was preposterous. But that article is a reasonable case for "possibly guilty but certainly not beyond reasonable doubt" and makes a good point about one-sided advocacy films.

What do people think about this?

That article was a very well balanced critique of the four documentaries made about the case, and makes some good points about journalistic advocacy generally.

In my opinion, the first Paradise Lost film is the closest you will find to unbiased journalism in this case, and it isn't very because by the end of the film the film makers have clearly come down on the side of the defense. However, I suppose even that tells us something given that they were observing the whole case and subsequent trials close up.

 

[Rolfe]

Not that I recall.

That's extremely strange.

I'm not a "forensic pathologist" as such but I have done forensic pathology to the point of appearing in court as an expert witness in that context. Before I semi-retired I was dealing with dead bodies every other day. I'm instinctively familiar with the way a position which was natural while rigor is setting in becomes grossly incongruous when the body is moved so that the structures that supported it in that position are no longer supporting it.

It's actually common sense when you start to think about it. Imagine any possible ways these bodies seen at 48 seconds into Paradise Lost could have been lying on the ground or in a stream or in a storm drain or anywhere you like, to become fixed in these positions. I can't. And it's both of them.

Imagine them sitting on chairs, possibly tied to the chairs, and yes, it starts to make sense. See here. https://i.imgur.com/Z2xvEjH.jpg (Still from Casino Royale.)

The third body seen at 51 seconds is less obvious because the knees are together, but the same thing applies. It's not a natural position of someone lying on the ground when rigor set in. The arms and legs don't relax into the available space in a natural way.

I'm going to take a lot of convincing that these poor children weren't tortured while tied to chairs, killed in that position, and left there for a few hours while rigor set in before being dumped in the stream.

 

[John Jones]

I read Jessie's confession. It was published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. He confessed to catching one of the boys who had escaped. That makes him an active participant in murder. Also, the WMPD went to Jessie's home and brought him in for questioning.

I' gonna need to see some evidence that misskelly implicated Echols and Baldwin in order to collect a reward. I've never heard this before.

 

[Strawberry]

That's extremely strange.

I'm not a "forensic pathologist" as such but I have done forensic pathology to the point of appearing in court as an expert witness in that context. Before I semi-retired I was dealing with dead bodies every other day. I'm instinctively familiar with the way a position which was natural while rigor is setting in becomes grossly incongruous when the body is moved so that the structures that supported it in that position are no longer supporting it.

It's actually common sense when you start to think about it. Imagine any possible ways these bodies seen at 48 seconds into Paradise Lost could have been lying on the ground or in a stream or in a storm drain or anywhere you like, to become fixed in these positions. I can't. And it's both of them.

Imagine them sitting on chairs, possibly tied to the chairs, and yes, it starts to make sense. See here. https://i.imgur.com/Z2xvEjH.jpg (Still from Casino Royale.)

The third body seen at 51 seconds is less obvious because the knees are together, but the same thing applies. It's not a natural position of someone lying on the ground when rigor set in. The arms and legs don't relax into the available space in a natural way.

I'm going to take a lot of convincing that these poor children weren't tortured while tied to chairs, killed in that position, and left there for a few hours while rigor set in before being dumped in the stream.

Could the position of the bodies be explained by the way they were tied and placed face down in the drainage ditch?

 

[Rolfe]

That article was a very well balanced critique of the four documentaries made about the case, and makes some good points about journalistic advocacy generally.

In my opinion, the first Paradise Lost film is the closest you will find to unbiased journalism in this case, and it isn't very because by the end of the film the film makers have clearly come down on the side of the defense. However, I suppose even that tells us something given that they were observing the whole case and subsequent trials close up.

This is something I have seen discussed in an article some time ago. Advocacy groups for people believed to have suffered a miscarriage of justice almost never go after the "quite likely to have done it but still should never have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt" cases. They almost always pile in from a position of believing the convicted person to be innocent.

Here we have convictions which quite obviously should never have happened on the evidence available. So of course the advocacy groups start to form. I think it must be quite difficult, however, to advocate on behalf of convicted people from the point of view of thinking they could well have committed the crime, purely on the basis of the conviction being unsafe due to lack of evidence. I think if you're going to commit to advocacy in that situation you probably have to let yourself go into the "they were innocent" mindset to be able to advocate effectively.

 

[Rolfe]

Could the position of the bodies be explained by the way they were tied and placed face down in the drainage ditch?

I don't think so. I don't see how you get that legs apart with bent knees position that way. And in duplicate, too. And as I said the same observation can be made on the third body, although it's less obvious because the legs aren't apart.

Even if you could find a way to get the third body in that position without the use of a chair (and again I think it's difficult), the fact that all three bodies look as if they were tied to chairs when rigor set in is really striking.

 

[John Jones]

That's extremely strange.

I'm not a "forensic pathologist" as such but I have done forensic pathology to the point of appearing in court as an expert witness in that context. Before I semi-retired I was dealing with dead bodies every other day. I'm instinctively familiar with the way a position which was natural while rigor is setting in becomes grossly incongruous when the body is moved so that the structures that supported it in that position are no longer supporting it.

It's actually common sense when you start to think about it. Imagine any possible ways these bodies seen at 48 seconds into Paradise Lost could have been lying on the ground or in a stream or in a storm drain or anywhere you like, to become fixed in these positions. I can't. And it's both of them.

Imagine them sitting on chairs, possibly tied to the chairs, and yes, it starts to make sense. See here. https://i.imgur.com/Z2xvEjH.jpg (Still from Casino Royale.)

The third body seen at 51 seconds is less obvious because the knees are together, but the same thing applies. It's not a natural position of someone lying on the ground when rigor set in. The arms and legs don't relax into the available space in a natural way.

I'm going to take a lot of convincing that these poor children weren't tortured while tied to chairs, killed in that position, and left there for a few hours while rigor set in before being dumped in the stream.

I'm not a pathologist, so I'm in no position to argue that point. There was a remarkable lack of blood where the bodies were found, so that led people to conclude they were killed elsewhere.

 

[Strawberry]

I read Jessie's confession. It was published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. He confessed to catching one of the boys who had escaped. That makes him an active p in murder. Also, the WMPD went to Jessie's home and brought him in for questioning.

I' gonna need to see some evidence that misskelly implicated Echols and Baldwin in order to collect a reward. I've never heard this before.

You have heard it before because it was already suggested in this thread before I posted. Indeed you were responding to that very accusation in the post I quoted.

I think I've made it clear all along that its purely my opinion that Jessie's first confession was an attempt to cast himself as an eyewitness and collect the reward money, but being young and not too bright, not to mention being under pressure from the police, he crossed the line and implicated himself instead. Its an opinion, and looking at the relationship he had with Vicky Hutchinson, who we know told lies to try and get some of the reward money, I would describe it as an educated guess. That's all - you're free to disagree if you like.

 

[Strawberry]

I don't think so. I don't see how you get that legs apart with bent knees position that way. And in duplicate, too. And as I said the same observation can be made on the third body, although it's less obvious because the legs aren't apart.

Even if you could find a way to get the third body in that position without the use of a chair (and again I think it's difficult), the fact that all three bodies look as if they were tied to chairs when rigor set in is really striking.

I'm thinking of the knees being bent up by the ankles being tied to the wrists, and the ebb and flow of the water accounting for the legs being apart. Does that make sense?