Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[John Jones]

Well, a gun clearly wasn't the murder weapon so I suppose nobody was thinking of guns in connection with this case. The Bojangles man is the only thing that suggests a gun - ie, maybe he stumbled on the killer disposing of the bodies and got shot.

I don't really believe that though, I think the Bojangles man is probably a red herring, telling only because the loss of the blood scrapings from the restaurant shows incompetence on the part of the WMPD.

What about the Bojangles man suggests a firearm to you? Do you know what a red herring is?

 

[Strawberry]

What about the Bojangles man suggests a firearm to you? Do you know what a red herring is?

The blood.

Yes I do.

 

[Rolfe]

Strawberry was only speculating about how a single murderer could have controlled three victims without one of them escaping. Waving a gun at them is one possibility.

If Hobbs is the main suspect now, it does seem as if the Bojangles story is a red herring, as I don't see any suggestion that Hobbs went to Bojangles. There was something about him doing a washing at home though, which was put of character.

 

[John Jones]

I'm not sure why you're asking for evidence of that when its clearly just a conversation about possible ways for one perp to control three victims.

I think it's rude for you to continually object to my requests for evidence of your claims.

Why do you have a problem with me asking for evidence of your unsupported claims?

 

[Strawberry]

I think it's rude for you to continually object to my requests for evidence of your claims.

Why do you have a problem with me asking for evidence of your unsupported claims?

Because you're asking for evidence of things that aren't claims.

 

[John Jones]

Strawberry was only speculating about how a single murderer could have controlled three victims without one of them escaping. Waving a gun at them is one possibility.

If Hobbs is the main suspect now, it does seem as if the Bojangles story is a red herring, as I don't see any suggestion that Hobbs went to Bojangles. There was something about him doing a washing at home though, which was put of character.

*Let Strawberry make her own case, if you don't mind. She has none.

*Let those who claim that Terry Hobbs is the main suspect defend or convict him based on evidence.

 

[Rolfe]

*Let Strawberry make her own case, if you don't mind. She has none.

You're being ridiculously confrontational. I questioned whether a single attacker could overpower three children without one managing to escape. Strawberry pointed out that one possible way would be to threaten them with a gun. If we have no idea who did it or how, then that possibility can't be excluded even though there is no evidence for a gun.

*Let those who claim that Terry Hobbs is the main suspect defend or convict him based on evidence.

Well, let's see. Who would these people be? Apparently the makers of West of Memphis. Do you see any of them in the thread? No, I thought not.

I don't see how Terry Hobbs can be described as anything other than the main suspect, given that he appears to be the only suspect at this time. This started in the third Paradise Lost film, although at that point Hobbs wasn't being explicitly accused. The line was more that it was possible to make a better case against Hobbs than against the three teenagers so in law the three teenagers should not be convicted.

Then in West of Memphis a whole lot more stuff started to come out and the atmosphere got a lot more accusatory. I have no idea how strong this case is because it was entirely one-sided. No exculpatory evidence or defence case was presented. However, to deny that at this stage he's the main suspect seems perverse.

Since I don't see the makers of West of Memphis in this thread, how are we to proceed? Do you prohibit any discussion of the points they raise in the film? Why would you want to do that?

 

[Rolfe]

I'm encouraged to note that we're now six years on from the Alford plea, and none of the three seems to have been in any sort of trouble. I seem to recall that there were suspended sentences involved that would be activated if any of them fell foul of the law in the following ten years. So far so good.

I was worried about this because they were very young when they were imprisoned and they were mixed-up kids to begin with. At least Damien was and Jesse had mild learning difficulties and this is not a good start. Then they were institutionalised with violent criminals for 18 years. It's something of a miracle they've turned out so well given the circumstances.

I also note that Life After Death is a New York Times best-seller. I hope that at least provides some income.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm watching West of Memphis here:

I forgot that Jessie Miskelly Jr had a pretty much iron-clad alibi. He was wrestling in an amateur competition a county away. He was seen, photgraphed, and injured wrestling at the time those cub scouts were murdered.

And his coerced confession was really all the evidence the police had.

Going back to this topic when it was discussed earlier in the thread. That point struck me also when watching West of Memphis last night. If the alibi is strong, I was surprised more wasn't made of that point.

It's absolutely central. Apart from the jailhouse snitch who said Baldwin confessed to him, or in his hearing, and he recanted and apologised on film anyway, Jesse's "confession" is the only actual evidence against any of the three. You can argue about forced and coerced and prompted confessions till the cows come home, but if the person making the confession turns out to have a solid alibi that settles the whole thing. It doesn't just exonerate Jesse, it exonerates all of them.

Again it reminds me of the Stefan Kiszko case. Kiszko also had an alibi. He was seen by multiple people in a nearby town at the time of the murder if I recall correctly, and he had actually gone with his mother to put flowers on his father's grave. This evidence was led at trial, but it seemed to be ignored by the just because of the (recanted) confession.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testing a knife for blood

Maybe someone more current on this case can help me. At one point a knife from Mr. Byers was tested for blood in some way. Does anyone know what kind of test was done? It might have been tested by a private lab in North Carolina, but I don't believe that the state's crime lab was involved. Probably because I read one of John Douglas's books, I don't consider Mr. Byers to be much of a suspect. The knife is probably a red herring, but I have become interested in presumptive and confirmatory blood tests, and this might be a good example of a misinterpreted presumptive test. A quick Google search turned up: "In December 1993, Byers gave a knife to Paradise Lost cameraman Doug Cooper as a present. After consulting with HBO, the filmmakers turned the knife over to West Memphis police. The knife had blood traces around the handle, which the crime lab tested. The tests showed the blood could have belonged to either John Mark Byers or Chris Byers. West Memphis police interrogated Byers again in January 1994".

I am continually surprised by cases in which a jury ignores strong alibi defense, but there are a number of examples of it.

 

[Rolfe]

I've been reading earlier discussion in this thread about West of Memphis and I'm unsure about the alibi evidence. Some say it's sound while others say the wrestling meeting was on a different day. This doesn't seem to have been resolved but if Jesse had a good alibi I'm surprised none of the films makes much of it, because it would absolutely kill the case stone dead.

I'd like to see a debunking of the case against Terry Hobbs presented in that film, or a defence case countering that evidence and introducing exculpatory evidence, if there is any. Unfortunately this is a case that will never be tested in court because of the Alford plea. It does seem quite strong from the Jackson film, but one must bear in mind that that's one-sided.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jessie's whereabouts

I seem to recall that Jessie or his relatives mixed up an event (the location of a non-school wrestling meet) that happened one week, thinking it happened on a different week. My memory is pretty hazy, but a commenter at the link below discusses this. I don't claim to be very knowledgable about this case and cannot say whether or not this evidence is disputed, but here is a link to Jessie's timeline, as provided by his father.

 

[Rolfe]

That's extremely helpful. I'm unclear as to how the prosecution disputes this, given that it must if it's trying to say Jesse was involved in the murders at some point. Do they simply affect to disbelieve the alibi witnesses? It wouldn't be the first time I suppose.

 

[John Jones]

You're being ridiculously confrontational. I questioned whether a single attacker could overpower three children without one managing to escape. Strawberry pointed out that one possible way would be to threaten them with a gun. If we have no idea who did it or how, then that possibility can't be excluded even though there is no evidence for a gun.




Well, let's see. Who would these people be? Apparently the makers of West of Memphis. Do you see any of them in the thread? No, I thought not.

I don't see how Terry Hobbs can be described as anything other than the main suspect, given that he appears to be the only suspect at this time. This started in the third Paradise Lost film, although at that point Hobbs wasn't being explicitly accused. The line was more that it was possible to make a better case against Hobbs than against the three teenagers so in law the three teenagers should not be convicted.

Then in West of Memphis a whole lot more stuff started to come out and the atmosphere got a lot more accusatory. I have no idea how strong this case is because it was entirely one-sided. No exculpatory evidence or defence case was presented. However, to deny that at this stage he's the main suspect seems perverse.

Since I don't see the makers of West of Memphis in this thread, how are we to proceed? Do you prohibit any discussion of the points they raise in the film? Why would you want to do that?

You're correct, I apologize to you and to strawberry.

 

[Rolfe]

Thank you and we'll say no more about it.

I saw you had posted some sensible comments about West of Memphis about the time the film came out. Actually, although I was in the thread and reading it at the time, I wasn't following the arguments because I hadn't watched the films. I have now (I'm half way through Devil's Knot) and I've got a much better grasp of the issues.

The witch-hunt against Mark Byers in the second Paradise Lost film was a bit of a shocker. I thought the film was poor and that they were in effect doing to Byers what had been done to the three teenagers - building a flimsy case against him on the basis of "he's the sort of person who could have done it." (He's a very good singer by the way.) The switcheroo to accusing Terry Hobbs in the third film at first seemed like another shot at doing the same thing - OK so going after one stepfather didn't work out let's go for the other one. It was only redeemed to some extent by its presentation as a legal ruse along the lines of a "special defence of incrimination". In that, the accused shows that there is credible evidence that someone else committed the crime, and it doesn't have to be BARD and it doesn't even have to be stronger than the evidence against the accused, it just has to be a reasonable case which is enough to throw reasonable doubt on the case against the accused.

However, West of Memphis went way further than that and started to build a genuinely fact-based case against Hobbs. I found what was presented in the film to be reasonably persuasive, although as I said I was conscious that it was showing only one side of the story, Hobbs didn't have right of reply, and we weren't shown any case for the defence. Since the Alford plea means that the state will not investigate Hobbs, I'd be quite interested to know how strong others think the case against him actually is.

He's obviously not Mr. Bojangles though, so if he was the killer and he acted alone (+/- Jacoby) then perhaps Mr. Bojangles was someone unconnected to the murders?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

However, West of Memphis went way further than that and started to build a genuinely fact-based case against Hobbs. I found what was presented in the film to be reasonably persuasive, although as I said I was conscious that it was showing only one side of the story, Hobbs didn't have right of reply, and we weren't shown any case for the defence. Since the Alford plea means that the state will not investigate Hobbs, I'd be quite interested to know how strong others think the case against him actually is.

He's obviously not Mr. Bojangles though, so if he was the killer and he acted alone (+/- Jacoby) then perhaps Mr. Bojangles was someone unconnected to the murders?

It seems possible, even plausible. Hobbs is easy to dislike though. As you stated, he couldn't defend himself. IF that documentary portrayed the truth, I certainly think it warrants an investigation, although as you stated, it won't happen.

Partly the desire for it to be Hobbs comes from wanting it to be solved, I think. I know I don't like an unsolved homicide. It is human to want answers, to want it solved and to want to know what happened.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, somebody did it. But while the Bojangles story remains unexplained it's difficult to be too certain about any white suspect unless the case is very strong. Some of the stuff said against Hobbs is strong if it's true, but we have no way to test its reliability.

 

[Vixen]

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.

How do you explain the ritualistic way the boys' were tied up with their own shoelaces (in as many different ways as there are perpetrators). Satanists are fixated on knots, as conferring magic powers (Echols is obsessed with 'Magick'.)

The boys were found in that state of rigor mortis, because as Miskelley confessed - and he had 'insider' information that he could not have got from the press - that was they way they were tied up by Echols and Baldwin (he distances himself, although he admits to chasing after Michael Moore, who made a brave effort to escape crying, 'help us, help us', and budgeoning him over the head). He claims they were sexually abused, and poor Byers, castrated, before they died, Byers of his immediate wounds, and Misskelley describes the trajectory of his blood on castration as being the length of one car, and the other two left to drown.

Now, given Misskelley is supposed to be this mentally retarded moron who should not have been interviewed by police because he was mentally challenged, how do account for Misskelley knowing all of these things, which turned out to be fact in terms of his description of the boys' demise?

Incidentally, an IQ of 72 is within the normal range, and Misskelley falls within the same band of IQ as 50% of the population.

All three of the accused failed polygraphs on five key questions ('Did you do it', 'Do you know who did do it', etc). Echols when asked how he'd imagine the perpetrators to feel, replied they'd feel really happy about what they did.

He knew in advance of even the pathologist that the boys had been urinated on in their mouths, and this substance was later found in their stomachs.

Animals do not behave like this, which is why as you as a vet have never seen an animal who died naturally in such a grotesque position.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You could argue that half the rednecks in West Memphis were also after the reward money.

Anyone would think police only focused on Echols and Baldwin, when in fact, they interviewed many people as potential suspects.

 

[Vixen]

I do seem to have form for that sort of thing! #Lockerbie

Actually, consider the symmetry of the poses of all three bodies. The legs are bent to exactly the same angles in all three cases, hips and knees both. I'd take a fair bet the spines are more or less straight too, which is a difficult thing to pull off with a recumbent body lying on its side. I can't see how a body tossed randomly on the ground or into a stream or wherever is going to take up a position like that, even once never mind in triplicate. It's exactly the effect you'd get by sitting the body in a chair any tying the ankles to the chair legs though.

I suppose my education and experience mean that this is the sort of thing I'll notice. I'm slightly surprised the police wouldn't notice, but it kind of beggars belief that a forensic pathologist wouldn't notice assuming he saw the police video which I presume he did.

I'm thinking three kitchen chairs, probably in a basement or a garage. Of course I imagine there are a large number of basements and garages around there and the police couldn't have searched all of them immediately after the bodies were found. Until you have a suspect, it's going to be very difficult.

The three accused were teenagers living with their parents. Damien at least was living in a mobile home. I would very much like to know where they carried out the murders, if they were indeed guilty. Not easy for people without a place of their own to find somewhere.

I think there must have been more than one person though. How do you catch three eight-year-olds and tie them to chairs in a garage, on your own? But the whole thing was sadistic in the extreme. Where is the group of child-torturing sadists round this neck of the woods? Is there an abandoned premises that could have been used? How much preparation would have been needed?

So many questions, and it's a bit late for answers.

The murders took place in Robin Hood Hills, as broadly described by Misskelley. The three planned a Satanist murder (to gain magick power - they regularly met to flay dogs and dabble in the occult, which Echols was obsessed with, and were fixated on sucking blood, as witnessed by many).

I believe Echols and Baldwin had homosexual tendencies. The three lay in hiding and and Echols made animal noises to attract the boys in further, whereupon they were ambushed.

They had been seen by multiple witnesses on their bikes in that area, and their bikes were found there.