West Memphis Three Revisited

[Project Willow]

I'm going to throw a stone in the pool, or perhaps launch a grenade into the puddle here, given the consensus of the members of this board, including its host, about the nature of this case. See: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27280&hilit=misskelley

I watched the HBO documentaries and read up on the case, so I also shared the predominant view, though I generally kept this to myself. Other RA activists continued to place the three on their "convicted for RA" lists, but I've always avoided this. Due to the role that the perception of the case played in flopping the final corner of the carpet back over claims of RA, it was simply too problematic to reference.

The persistence of other activists, and witnessing Echols in numerous recent appearances on talk shows, prompted me to do a review. Fortunately, because of the various motions put forward during the court proceedings, some rather extraordinary documentation, including conversations between Misskelley and his attorneys, Echols' psychiatric records, is publicly available. Most of the court transcripts are now posted online, at this site:
http://callahan.8k.com/

A blog, with the unfortunate name of WM3Truth, pulls from this documentation and does a decent job refuting the major points of the mythology created by the defense teams and reflected in the HBO documentaries. After reading this material, my view of the case is beginning to change.
http://wm3truth.com/

Here are some reasons why:

Myth 1: The three were railroaded due to social forces, including "satanic panic."

Police suspected Echols because he had a prior record of violent assaults during the years leading up to the murders. From Exhibit 500: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

1991-1992 School records

He has been suspended X7 due to negative behaviors in the classroom. Information does suggest that Damien has set fire to his academic classroom on two occasions, that he has also been truant, engaged in physical confrontations while on school grounds and has, often times, threatened to put “hexes” on school instructors. (236)

Inpatient reference to school behavior.

Damien admits to a history of violence. He said prior to admission he did attempt to enucleate a peer’s eye at school. He was suspended subsequently from school. He was suspended on seven different occasions during that school year. He related that he was suspended on one occasion, because he set a fire in his science classroom and also would walk off on campus on several occasions. (92)

May 1992 Echols arrested for burglary, breaking and entering, disorderly conduct, sexual misconduct and terroristic threatening.
June, transferred from juvenile det. to Charter Hospital for suicide ideation.

September, 1992, Portland Oregon. Echols' parents bring him to hospital. Admitted for suicidal and homicidal ideation.
Mid September, back in Arkansas, arrested for probation violation. Transferred back to Charter Hospital, diagnosis: psychotic.

Damien Echols' own statements about himself to various individuals, including mental health professionals, social workers, and police, introduced the occult aspect of the case.

Doctor's notes from his 3 institutionalizations in 1992 reveal Echols is quite disturbed, his profile is straight out of Gilligan, but with the use of occult practices as a compensatory mechanism.

Presently in detention in Jonesboro, picked up for violation of probation, threatened to slit parents throat and eat them alive. Transferred to Crittenden, one of the kids at the detention hall cut his wrists, Damien grabbed his arm and began to the suck the blood, smeared it over his body and said he’s a devil worshipping vampire. Says he’s not a vampire but a witch. He is in isolation and suicide watch.

Approx. three hours after Damien arrived, he was sitting in rec. area with several other residents. One of the boys had scraped his arm a little, and it was bleeding some. Without warning, Damien grabbed the arm that was bleeding, and began to suck the blood from it. The boys all stated he had been saying he had not taken his medication the night before, and he was about to “go off on them”. Damien was asked why he did this, and he stated “I don’t know.” He also told staff he had threatened to kill his father and eat him. For the safety and well being of other residents, Damien as asked to go to his room. He has been kept there until he was picked up for court. He hasn’t been a problem since, just some very strange actions at times. It is our opinion that Damien needs mental health treatment.

January, 1993, outpatient counselor notes.

Damien relates that he is trying to find a way to live on his own. He does not get along with step-father. Reveals a history of abuse as he talked of 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 that 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 me.” (50)

Focus of today’s session is spent talking with Damien about his feelings of death. He brought with him to session a poem that he had written during the past week. The theme of this poem centered around death and power. 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 10. He does not remember where he learned to do this.

Damien believes that there is no God. He feels that society 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. We discussed how some of this is related to his experiences as a child. He acknowledges that some of this is related to his childhood abuse trauma issues but he feels that it is who he is now.

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 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 also 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.

It becomes more noticeable today in talking with Damien that he has many things from childhood that he simply does not remember. This is believed to be a dissociative response to trauma issues. Damien is agreeable to beginning to talk about what he experienced as a child that he remembers. He is also agreed to continue to discuss his issues with power and control as related to his practice of rituals. Therapist encouraged him to continue writing and to bring the writings into the sessions as a way of communicating his feelings.

A: Damien’s affect and mood today continued to be bland though there was more emotion when talking about drinking blood. (52-53)

...

S: Damien is seen today for a scheduled session. He is dressed completely in black and is noted to have cuts on his R arm and hand.

O: Damien relates that he cut his arm & hand as a way of permanently marking his skin. The name Domini is cut into his arm. Session continues focused on Damien’s self concept and image. Relates feeling very angry yesterday when running into previous girlfriend. “I controlled it — I can do anything”.

A: Affect and mood — flat (54)

In February, 1993, Echols files for and is eventually awarded Social Security Disability due to, as he states, he is "mentally disturbed" and "a sociopath".

Given this record, were police completely out of line in considering Echols a suspect? Are all of these professionals bent on framing Echols as a satanist or were they simply reporting what he had told them?

---

Myth 2: Misskelley's confession was coerced.

On June 3, 1993, Misskelley was not interrogated for 12 hours without the knowledge or consent of his parents. His father knew where he was. Records include a waiver the father signed at the police station.

Jessie Miskelley confessed to the crime more than once between 1993-1994, including confessing to his attorney, and again to authorities, after he was convicted. In his first confession he revealed details of the crimes that had not been made public.

Due to a rule 37 hearing, Misskelley's conversations with his attorneys are now part of the public record.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_stidham2.html

Now that you are showing me some notes, I recognize that we have some
file memos, some of which are legible and others are not. (BMHR 1498). There
are some notes from an interview with Misskelley in my file. The interview was
June 11, 1993. It was marked as State’s Exhibit 12E. It describes what he is
telling me, which is that he had seen pictures of the three boys a week before the
murder at a cult meeting, the notes continue that the three teens were in the water.
Damien hollered at them. Jason hid in the weeds. The boys started fighting with
Damien, Jason started fighting with them. Damien stuck his penis in one boy’s
mouth, Misskelley hit one of the boys. Jason ‘screwed’ the blond boy in the mouth
and in the butt. Misskelley realized it was time to stop. Misskelley helped one of
the boys up. Damien screwed the Boy Scout. Jason stabbed one of the boys in the
face. Misskelley choked the Boy Scout. Damien and Jason threw them in the
water. They were kicking around. All of this was on June 11, 1993. (BMHR
1508).

Yes, the details of his confessions change between the tellings, but why confess to your attorney and after you are convicted?

Interestingly I'd forgotten this little gem about the case, Ofshe's involvement.

Mr. Lax. I think it was that day that I had lunch with him. (BMHR 1519). Lax
said he would mail me an article that had appeared in a magazine about Richard
Ofshe.
...

The tape of the August 19, 1993 session shows that I am trying to explain to
Misskelley the options that he had, and the plea offers.
As I testified before, I also prepared a number of motions. I asked other
lawyers for motions. I received no assistance from the Death Penalty Resource
Center.
When you ask me further about communications with Misskelley, it was not
until I saw how Dr. Richard Ofshe conducted his interview with Misskelley that I
began to understand that there was a better way to communicate with him than I
did. I did not understand how to deal with a client with his handicaps. (BMHR
1557).

---

This is a very slim start. I encourage people to give the material on http://wm3truth.com a chance, or plunge into the full documentation on http://callahan.8k.com

So, why did they do it?

Meaning, why did the HBO film makers portray the case the way they did?

I believe this is due to a very real satanic panic: the panic on behalf of average Americans, including secularists and liberals, at the idea that ritual abuse exists, and the encouragement of this panic by individuals (not to mention some connected to the national security state) who have everything to lose if public perception changes.

Well, fire away.

[Sepka]

I still feel much as I did in this prior thread - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27280&

I think Misskelly was probably involved with the murders, but I'm much less inclined to think that of Echols and Baldwin. I do appreciate the information you've posted, and look forward to reading it. The case continues to fascinate.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Thank you so much for this comprehensive and damn fascinating post.

(I would thank you for further complicating a complicated issue, too, but that might sound downright sarcastic in print. I happen to like those gnarled fractals, though. Really.)

Edit: Fundamentally, my biggest beef with my generation is how "watching a documentary" is currently considered a fast track to conversational expertise. This issue, along with "climate change" as an activist cause, was foundational in making me realize this. I was especially compelled with the fact that the entirety of the documented history and testimony on RA was dismissable with "You simply HAVE to see this movie about the West Memphis 3..."

[compared2what?]

Given this record, were police completely out of line in considering Echols a suspect?

Considering? Maybe not. But were they out of line in arresting, trying, convicting and sentencing him to death when they had, altogether, zero evidence that he'd committed the crime?

I'd say they were.

Are all of these professionals bent on framing Echols as a satanist or were they simply reporting what he had told them?

It's kind of weedy territory, inherently. But first of all, I actually wouldn't necessarily take every word in the notes and other records from the kinds of state institutions that his mind-bogglingly destitute and chaotic family occasionally placed him in at face value. He was the very definition of an unfortunate son. And he was mostly in a part of the world that isn't known for its love of arty outcast youths with a strong affinity for mystical shit and heavy metal who don't shoot or hunt, no matter how disposable or despised in social-class terms they are or aren't

But fwiw, if I knew nothing else about him -- ie, if no murders had occurred -- and I'd seen those records, I'd probably have said he was an extremely unhappy kid with a relatively routine and age-appropriate thing for the occult who was possibly just acting out and possibly chronically troubled..

But probably the former. Because if he really had been showing signs of psychopathy, there'd be a lot more records and indications of it in his treatment history and background info than a note here or there. And plus criminal records, same for sociopathy. I mean, I guess you can call that a record of violence. But what it boils down to is pretty much that he was a teenage boy living in dire poverty in the not-very-ecnomically-happy-or-peppy town of West Memphis, AK who got in fights at school and committed some petty acts of vandalism.

Also, LE's got a little bit of a corrupt tendency right around there. It's on a drug-trafficking route.

Myth 2: Misskelley's confession was coerced.

It was, imo. But since it was also highly inaccurate wrt basic details to the point of not being fully credible anyway, moot point.

So, why did they do it?

Meaning, why did the HBO film makers portray the case the way they did?

I believe this is due to a very real satanic panic: the panic on behalf of average Americans, including secularists and liberals, at the idea that ritual abuse exists, and the encouragement of this panic by individuals (not to mention some connected to the national security state) who have everything to lose if public perception changes.

Well, fire away.

But you know what? I agree with you more than I disagree on that one. I think it's a little unfair to the filmmakers, in that they were actually reasonably restrained about their depiction of that stuff. But only a little. Because they did superfluously reference the phrase "Satanic panic" (showed newspaper headlines, IIRC) for its news-peg value when they were (in point of fact) actually making a movie about a socially despised and outcast kid getting framed for capital murder in the Bible Belt who happened to be framable in those terms.

And who also happened to be very photogenic and white. But whose story was otherwise (sadly) not the exception but the rule for an indigent defendant on trial for a serious crime the jurisdiction doesn't see often and doesn't know how to handle. Or care to know, probably.

Anyway. I understand what you're objecting to. And I think you're right to object to it. But a fair amount of it comes from perceptions of the movie, rather than the movie itself. And unless the argument is that his affinity for the occult and fondness for books and music with Satanic overtones was, by itself, grounds for conviction -- which I'm pretty sure you're not arguing -- it doesn't really change anything about the case, anyway. It's a valid reason for criticizing the movie. But that's a separate issue.

I was very happy (and surprised) that they were freed. And I guess I still am. Doesn't happen often enough.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I think it's a little unfair to the filmmakers, in that they were actually reasonably restrained about their depiction of that stuff. But only a little. Because they did superfluously reference the phrase "Satanic panic" (showed newspaper headlines, IIRC) for its news-peg value when they were (in point of fact) actually making a movie about a socially despised and outcast kid getting framed for capital murder in the Bible Belt who happened to be framable in those terms.

And who also happened to be very photogenic and white. But whose story was otherwise (sadly) not the exception but the rule for an indigent defendant on trial for a serious crime the jurisdiction doesn't see often and doesn't know how to handle. Or care to know, probably.

Anyway. I understand what you're objecting to. And I think you're right to object to it. But a fair amount of it comes from perceptions of the movie, rather than the movie itself. And unless the argument is that his affinity for the occult and fondness for books and music with Satanic overtones was, by itself, grounds for conviction -- which I'm pretty sure you're not arguing -- it doesn't really change anything about the case, anyway. It's a valid reason for criticizing the movie. But that's a separate issue.

I was very happy (and surprised) that they were freed. And I guess I still am. Doesn't happen often enough.

^^Amen to all of that.

I feel like, at most points in my past 10 years of reading and writing, when I have been faced with really tough arguments, I have invariably turned away from them. That's the biggest reason I still recommend Jeff's book to anyone & everyone. The "burden of proof" is a very, very selective thing -- like being slapped in your powdered face by a leather glove, innit? The air goes out of the room. Yet for the most part, we can say The Dumbest Shit Imaginable but as long as it was on TV in the past week, the room will nod their heads with no "burden of proof" involved.

Appreciate those of you who keep my conscience uncomfortable.

[compared2what?]

A blog, with the unfortunate name of WM3Truth, pulls from this documentation and does a decent job refuting the major points of the mythology created by the defense teams and reflected in the HBO documentaries. After reading this material, my view of the case is beginning to change.
http://wm3truth.com/

Sorry. I forgot to say:

It's kind of a shame that that blog doesn't appear to include any autopsy/forensics reports. Because more than any other single thing -- and except indirectly, way, way more than the movies -- that's really why they were freed.

It's expert-testimony type stuff, of the kind where the prosecution can always find people who will swear that whatever the defense's people are swearing is wrong. But fwiw, they made a very persuasive argument that the entire theory of the case -- ie, that it was a rape-torture-murder of an extremely grotesque and seemingly ritualistic nature -- was mostly wrong, basically. Their argument was essentially that all of the stuff they took for signs of torture and some of the stuff they took for signs of rape were (almost certainly) actually signs of stuff like post-mortem small-animal predation. Terrible as that thought is.

I thought it was persuasive, anyway. But what do I know? I'm pretty sure I read a .pdf online somewhere, though.

[Project Willow]

Considering? Maybe not. But were they out of line in arresting, trying, convicting and sentencing him to death when they had, altogether, zero evidence that he'd committed the crime?

I'd say they were.

I don't agree that there was zero evidence. Two witnesses place him and a companion at the scene of the crime shortly after the estimated time of the murders. None of the alibis provided by the 3 defendants stood up in court, and police believed they had a confession.

Are all of these professionals bent on framing Echols as a satanist or were they simply reporting what he had told them?

It's kind of weedy territory, inherently. But first of all, I actually wouldn't necessarily take every word in the notes and other records from the kinds of state institutions that his mind-bogglingly destitute and chaotic family occasionally placed him in at face value. He was the very definition of an unfortunate son. And he was mostly in a part of the world that isn't known for its love of arty outcast youths with a strong affinity for mystical shit and heavy metal who don't shoot or hunt, no matter how disposable or despised in social-class terms they are or aren't

I specifically left out corroborative statements from others in the community as to Echols' violent behavior, including his cruelty to animals and other assaults, because that type of source is more easily dismissed. I could speak personally to what it's like being an arty outcast in a southern state institution, and yes, it's not pretty, but I see as little reason to assume such biases on behalf of those personnel as to assume Echols is a murderer based on the style of his clothing.

But fwiw, if I knew nothing else about him -- ie, if no murders had occurred -- and I'd seen those records, I'd probably have said he was an extremely unhappy kid with a relatively routine and age-appropriate thing for the occult who was possibly just acting out and possibly chronically troubled..

I could as well, except for the notes on flat affect and lack of remorse.

But probably the former. Because if he really had been showing signs of psychopathy, there'd be a lot more records and indications of it in his treatment history and background info than a note here or there. And plus criminal records, same for sociopathy. I mean, I guess you can call that a record of violence.

I don't agree. I personally know a number of sociopaths who have never had any brush with the law, and are quite good at fooling others about their nature.

Myth 2: Misskelley's confession was coerced.

It was, imo. But since it was also highly inaccurate wrt basic details to the point of not being fully credible anyway, moot point.

There's no evidence it was coerced. Did you read the material on his confessions at the site I posted? I did not wish to duplicate that effort here. Misskelley later explains the discrepancies as his attempts to keep police off track, which I admit does not make a great deal of sense.

...

As to autopsy reports, how did Misskelley know which boy had been cut and where? Was he able to predict the predation patterns of snapping turtles? I'm certain one thing we can agree upon is money buys experts.
Those reports and all the crime lab information is posted here: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html

[Project Willow]

Letter from Todd Moore, father of [victim] Michael Moore.

http://www.terryhobbs.com/2012/06/todd-moore-sets-record-straight.html

...
The defense team avoided sharing the results of the tests of everything with us by preemptively entering a guilty plea for their clients. Thanks to the plea deal, we may never know exactly what the defense found when the evidence was retested. Absence of DNA evidence does not prove the West Memphis Three (WM3) are innocent. The killers washed most of the evidence away in the water- filled ditch where they drowned my son. There was plenty of other evidence to convict them in 1994 without positive DNA. Most murderers are convicted without DNA evidence.

The defense attorneys for the WM3 had nearly 20 years to find "the real killer" and failed to do so. After nearly two decades and untold millions in donated funds spent, the best they could do was find a hair that may or may not have belonged to Terry Hobbs, step- father of victim Stevie Branch. It was allegedly found on a shoelace used to tie my son. It has never been proven to actually belong to Terry Hobbs. Even if it was Terry Hobbs' hair, that fact would prove nothing. Our sons were best friends, and my child spent considerable time in Terry Hobbs's home and could have picked up the hair on his shoe. This would be "secondary transfer" and makes the hair of no probative value. The defense has even admitted as much. Terry Hobbs did not murder my son. No credible law enforcement official believes so. Neither did Mark Byers, Mr. Bojangles nor any of the other defense red herrings.
...

[compared2what?]

I don't want to fight with you. I think it was a miscarriage of justice. Whatever they had on him, it was not enough evidence to convict, considering that the confession -- whether equivocal or not -- wasn't in evidence for the Baldwin/Echols trial at all and wasn't mentioned.

I believe that the state has a higher obligation to meet its burden of proof before sending people off to be killed than can be met by what a couple of witnesses said about where they saw somebody and a past record of minor-league trouble.

But I agree with the spirit of what you're saying as a criticism of the movie.

[8bitagent]

You guys need to see the new film "West of Memphis". If Paradise Lost 1-3 was a Wright Brothers prototype, West of Memphis is a stealth bomber.

Now...there ARE a lot of cases labeled "Satanic Panic" where I personally feel may have actually happened. And I actually agree with the late Ted Gundersen about some of them
(like the Mcmartin school case)
I get what the thread is about...how in 1995, could HBO make a case blanketly saying that these lads are innocent. Is this thread meaning that it's like OJ, where the cops may have planted and obfuscated evidence
but that OJ really still was guilty? Im not sure what the evidence is that these three were guilty. I mean even the body language of so many of the lead prosecutors indicates to me they knew the trial was a farce but that
they could never admit it. All of the witnesses have recanted and apologized.

But yes, sometimes these really truly were false "satanic panic" cases, as clearly evidenced in "Witch Hunt"
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Witch ... cale=en-US

*edit* that said, we still 20 years later have no real proof of just who did this heinous act. And yes, a tiny part of me wonders JUST where was Echols and company. And if it was more than one person. Could Terry Hobbs or one person have done it? Who knows. I agree Hobb's hair isnt too odd, as much as I think Hobb's has a rather dubious past. I personally cant see how Baldwin could have had anything to do with it.
While heavily triggering for even people who havent been through abuse, West of Memphis really to me went deep into the ugly crater of the case.

[Project Willow]

Is this thread meaning that it's like OJ, where the cops may have planted and obfuscated evidence
but that OJ really still was guilty? I'm not sure what the evidence is that these three were guilty. I mean even the body language of so many of the lead prosecutors indicates to me they knew the trial was a farce but that they could never admit it.

I may be a completely blind and dumb idiot, but I'm not willing to ignore the evidence that I've come upon. I have a feeling a lot of murder cases work just like this one did, only they don't come under the same amount of scrutiny because they don't involve claims of satanism. I am seeing the same patterns as I saw in the daycare cases, and in continuing attacks on RA survivors, where every minute detail is picked apart and everything is eventually dismissed in one way or another because it simply can't be true... because, satanism! HBO makes these lovely propaganda pieces, which include blatant lies, just like they did for the McMartin case, and Ofshe was interviewing Misskelley. The lies get repeated and now Echols is lying in the media about issues and details that can be immediately refuted because the court records are posted online.

All of the witnesses have recanted and apologized. [.quote]

All of them? That's quite astonishing. Citations please.

While heavily triggering for even people who havent been through abuse, West of Memphis really to me went deep into the ugly crater of the case.

Do explain, because I will not be seeing the movie, I'm trying to stay away from movies here. Really, I intended this to be a discussion, and a learning process, and I realize it may not be an easy one at that.

[KUAN]

.
To me, what has been striking all the way through is the insouciance of Echols.

[8bitagent]

Is this thread meaning that it's like OJ, where the cops may have planted and obfuscated evidence
but that OJ really still was guilty? I'm not sure what the evidence is that these three were guilty. I mean even the body language of so many of the lead prosecutors indicates to me they knew the trial was a farce but that they could never admit it.

I may be a completely blind and dumb idiot, but I'm not willing to ignore the evidence that I've come upon. I have a feeling a lot of murder cases work just like this one did, only they don't come under the same amount of scrutiny because they don't involve claims of satanism. I am seeing the same patterns as I saw in the daycare cases, and in continuing attacks on RA survivors, where every minute detail is picked apart and everything is eventually dismissed in one way or another because it simply can't be true... because, satanism! HBO makes these lovely propaganda pieces, which include blatant lies, just like they did for the McMartin case, and Ofshe was interviewing Misskelley. The lies get repeated and now Echols is lying in the media about issues and details that can be immediately refuted because the court records are posted online.

All of the witnesses have recanted and apologized. [.quote]

All of them? That's quite astonishing. Citations please.

While heavily triggering for even people who havent been through abuse, West of Memphis really to me went deep into the ugly crater of the case.

Do explain, because I will not be seeing the movie, I'm trying to stay away from movies here. Really, I intended this to be a discussion, and a learning process, and I realize it may not be an easy one at that.

Well Willow, you now have me intrigued. I guess my reaction to your thread is one more of shock, because as satisfying as West of Memphis was...there still was this question I kept having. And that is pretty much 'what about the three dead kids?'. So much focus is on the plight of the three incarcerated, and this religious assumption and zeal...yet there still is a mystery at the heart of it. I think one reason the case resonates so much with my specific generation is Im around Echols age. I was put in psychiatric facilities around the time he was, was considered a goth or outcast in high school. For me tho it was just internal depression from past sexual/physical abuse coupled with bullys at school, so I cant relate at all with the violence equasion from his alleged reports. However, this case happened and the HBO film came out while I was at the tale end of high school so a lot of people were talking about it despite OJ still dominating the news.

For me it is a VERY taboo, scary question to ask...and I have to admit, the thought DID pop into my head during the West of Memphis film and even before. "What if the police werent 100% wrong?" Im completely convinced
they made up evidence, planted stuff, and just did a thoroughly unbelievably railroading bad job to say the least. But...there was something always off about some of it. I still have no clue about whom the real killers were,
but its almost like that doesnt matter at all to the public or WM3 supporters.

I hate to admit it...but besides the photos and just the details presented in the courtroom...one of the most unsettling things was Echols smirk and indifference through the whole trial...often explained as teenage
antics. So indeed, Willow you have me thoroughly intrigued and I applaud you for bringing up a taboo question even if Im personally not quite convinced either way.

[8bitagent]

Interesting...

[8bitagent]

Ha, hate to pull a Columbo...but one more thing. I rewatched part of the Alfred plea press conference. I noticed that Misskelly doesnt look like he was having a Hallejulah moment.
Is it really true that he continued to give a confession long after any period of coercion? I do believe a lot of injustice is done by forceful cops, such as evidenced in the film Murder On A Sunday Morning.
However, I had no idea Misskelly continued to confess, even in even greater detail years later. Some say he never stopped confessing.

Chilling. If I had to say one thing about these four documentaries, I'd say Misskelly doesn't seem retarded at all.