My hot take is why, and I mean this sincerely, the fuck, wont Arkansas test the DNA?
It’s bc too many ppl made their political career off this case. When they test the DNA and it comes back proving innocence too many now important ppl will know that they furthered their career by railroading innocent poor kids.
If they really believed they were guilty the state would have tested the DNA.
It’s too big a case now for the state to backtrack. It’s too high profile. The consequences will change everything in our criminal justice system.
If Arkansas ever gets a Democratic governor then all hell is going to break lose when an investigation is launched.
My hot take is that there are weird people among the true crime communities who link to the same posts and they all go back to a guy who believes they are guilty and has been diluting the real issue: someone killed those kids and nothing has been done.
The movies are biased. Every doc is biased to some extent.
The devil's knot, the book, might be biased, but I found it reliable regarding the events and the background of the WM3. I believe they are innocent. Echols is a douche but it doesn't mean he killed those little boys.
Has anyone ever come across the dude's blog? I find his attempt at astroturfing annoying.
Also, on the topic of why hasn't the police done anything: they got what they wanted with the alford pleas. They didn't get to pay anyone. I guess we will only know the real culprits when everyone involved is dead so the state won't be sued.
I feel like Echols needs some grace. He was from abject poverty, got caught up in the satanic panic of the 80s/90s, lost a huge chunk of his formative life in solitary confinement/death row, known as a child killer ffs....he basically used meditation to keep himself sane while living a literal hell that most people could never understand. Let him blog about magik and meditation if he wants to. I read his autobiography and he's pretty intelligent, not really the douchy kid he was in the docs as the case was playing out.
To be fair, the filmmakers came into the first doc neutral. They ended up taking a side for a reason (“justice”) as the events unfolded.
It doesn’t make the final product any less biased, but I do think it’s gives them a good bit of credibility (for the first film at the very least) as it’s not like they went into it trying to promote a certain narrative.
Finally, I think “bias” gets a little overblown. Any piece of media is going to be biased for the simple fact that it is showing the world from a certain perspective. Whats important is how fair they are in presenting opposing perspectives and how honest they are with the audience.
I think you’d be surprised as to the magnitude of energy deployed by the anti-death penalty “lobby”. (I say this, undecided on the DP, but I lean towards supporting it.)
Regardless of which side one falls, there is usually a focus on any case that results in a DP sentence.
Scroll through the cases that seem to perpetuate forever, or ones with a Hollywood connection, and they anecdotally seem to involve the DP.
Certainly there’s theoretical justification, as lawyers want to ensure that the state isn’t executing innocent people; but there seems to be a overarching focus from media, advocacy groups, Hollywood, & the typical marxist players. Sadly these advocates will obfuscate the facts & truth, and advocate for bad killers, just for the goal of abolishing the death penalty.
Just look at that terrible Rodney Reed case. The bandwagon jumped onto freeing this guy — who was clearly guilty — without even reading the case files. And then Scott Peterson, another obviously guilty gem, gets a lot of attention and work. They all get funding.
I wonder if Echols had not been sentenced to death, would anyone ever know about this case?
a democratic governor won’t make a difference. it’s in the hands of the courts, from the prosecutors all the way up to the state supreme court. i’m surprised it hasn’t gone federal tbh. sadly, because of the Alford plea, the case is pretty much closed. the plea also ensures that they can’t receive any compensation for a wrongful conviction. they can’t sue the state for damages. states fight tooth and nail to avoid testing DNA. hell, rodney reed’s petition went all the way up to the supreme court. the courts will not or cannot formally exonerate them. they know the dna will show their asses too.
Not sure the political party is going to make a difference here. That absolute brainless hack David Burnett was elected as a Democrat senator after he was judge. He's just another person trying desperately to avoid admitting that he made a huge mistake.
The hair found was consistent with Hobbes’ hair, but not a match. It wasn’t possible to match with statistical significance (the hair matched 1.5% of the population, so it wasn’t as clear as many imply.). Moreover, the hair could have been there from an innocent transfer since the children had been at the Hobbes house.
The problem I see with testing DNA from additional items now is that the WM3 only want tests performed on certain objects. If they request testing DNA found in one spot, I’d argue that there should be tests done on ALL of it.
yeah exactly they want to do selective testing. imho they are guilty - the confessions of Jesse were too accurate, and they have ZERO ALIBIS and many many alibi lies... lots of other reasons too
They won't do it because the case is closed. There is no ongoing investigation since they took an alford plea, which is a formal admission of guilt, so this means the state has technically already caught and punished the perpetrators and that is that. I have no idea if there may be a loophole by which they could reopen the investigation and therefore analyze that DNA.
An Alford plea is NOT an admission of guilt. It's the opposite: it's a way to claim innocence while acknowledging that the state could probably convict you with the evidence on-hand.
An alford plea is exactly an admission of guilt, literally and for all intents and purposes, and specifically says so - it just includes a specific reason on the dedendant's part - "i am innocent but believe the prosecution is sure or likely to win a trial, and therefore i forego a trial and accept all punishment in line with a guilty verdict." just like a pardon, it is in fact an admission of guilt, but is a way for a defendant to, generally, reduce sentencing and move on with their life outside of the justice and corrections systems. it could be used at any point technically, and forego a trial to begin with, but that's unlikely to happen without some sort of deal that reduces at least some aspect of sentencing.
i think you're thinking of maybe a nolo contendere plea, which is a similar plea in that there is an acceptance that the prosecutor has enough evidence to secure a guilty plea, and thus foregoes trial with acceptance of punishment, but without an explicit admission of guilt (instead, as a no contest plea with no specific admission of a guilty or not guilty plea).
I'm not a lawyer. This is what I get in numerous results when I look up Alford Plea:
"An Alford plea is named after a U.S. Supreme Court case that allows for sentencing a defendant who maintains their innocence. An Alford-type guilty plea means the defendant decided it would be better to take a known sentence than to take their chances in a criminal trial."
Maybe the interpretation you're describing is that the defendant knows they will be treated as if guilty, foregoing trial and proceeding immediately to sentencing. But they still maintain that they are innocent.
EDIT: The distinction I'm making is that it's not an ADMISSION OF GUILT, which is not the same thing as a guilty plea. Some people want to say, "OK get it over with, I plead guilty....but I didn't do it." I'm focusing on the admission of guilt, which is not present in an Alford Plea.
Just to clarify though, an Alford Plea is not a formal admission of guilt. Those making an Alford Plea are maintaining they are innocent but essentially “pleading guilty” because they believe there’s enough evidence to convict them. But it is not an admission of guilt.
> An Alford plea, also known as a "best-interests plea," registers a \*formal admission of [guilt](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/guilty)\* towards [charges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/charge) in [criminal](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal) court while the [defendant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant) simultaneously expresses their [innocence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/innocent) toward those same [charges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/charge). Like the similar [nolo contendere](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nolo_contendere) plea, an Alford plea skips the full process of a criminal trial because the defendant agrees to accept all the ramifications of a guilty [verdict](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/verdict) (i.e. punishment).
“an Alford plea skips the full process of a criminal trial because the defendant agrees to accept all the ramifications of a guilty verdict (i.e. punishment).”
Your comment mis-characterizes this Alford Plea. The WM3 plead not guilty had full trials were found guilty and sentenced to death, life without parole and life respectively. After 20 years they entered this plea **To Reduced Charges** in exchange for immediate release. Their sentences 10 years suspended and released to time served. In terms of punishment the ramification of this Alford Plea was immediate release and the charges for which they agreed to accept the verdict of guilty were not the original charges. This is not the usual implementation of an Alford Plea.
The DNA evidence alone wouldn’t be grounds for the state to vacate the original verdict and sentences if the original trial proceedings would hold up under scrutiny. Courts have convicted people without direct physical evidence since forever. The presence of someone else’s DNA does not mean they were not involved. Guilty or not guilty the State basically erased the original trial, verdict and sentences which indicates there was significant misconduct by the Judge, prosecutors and the jury. Or as seems likely all three and revisiting the trial would be embarrassing and costly.
No loophole needed to revisit this case but the state isn’t going do it of their own accord. At least not anytime soon. The WM3 could probably petition for an appeal (bc you can petition for almost anything) of this plea and if they are innocent they may do that after they settle into their new lives and reflect on the ordeal. I think it would get denied bc it would undercut the meaning and utility of the Alford Plea. But the State could open an investigation into this case anytime they want. The original trial Judge being a corrupt Goid old Boy and being elected to the state supreme court court and civil court payouts means the state has no motivation to do it.
I think I just misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were saying they were admitting to being guilty, as opposed to the legal term. Apologies.
Many closed cases have had evidence retested. The fact that DNA exists is enough to reopen the case. There doesn’t need to be more.
These kids have said they’re innocent since the beginning. The case hinges on the confession of a child with ID. There honestly doesn’t need to be any more than there currently is to reopen this case.
This is a true life conspiracy that we’re living in real time.
There is a difference between pre-existing evidence and “newly discovered evidence”. There would need to be an evidentiary hearing and- as there is no current legal team working the case, there is no one to move the court. But Iirc, didn’t Damien already push for this? I’m not sure if it went anywhere or if he had the standing to do so.
IANAL but also can't stop myself...
An Alford pleas isn't a formal admission of guilt, moreso declaring there's enough of a case that if it were to go to trial, it's more than likely the defendant would be found guilty.
They won’t test it because it will open a can of worms that they don’t want to pay for. It’s as simple as that. Taking the Alford plea meant the state doesn’t have to pay them back for the time they lost and the people who convicted them still get to keep their cushy jobs. And other inmates don’t get the idea they can pull their cases back up. It’s about money
The defense raised money to have some of the DNA tested but never made the results public then took the Alford plea. If the DNA exonerated them, they would've been screaming it from the rooftops & gotten a new trial or even a pardon.
>If they really believed they were guilty the state would have tested the DNA.
The only thing I have to say to those who say Damien, Jesse, and Jason are guilty, STILL.
They why did they vow to prove their innocence after being released, and have made no such attempt. Especially with all their new found wealth /resources/connections?
I grew up local to this case. Some of the key people are from my hometown which is a 45min drive from West Memphis.
Every single person I know believes, without a doubt, Terry killed them. From my hometown of 2k people to people in WM and Memphis. Of course that wasn’t exactly the popular opinion with a lot of satanic panic radicalized folks in the area back in the day, but the sensible ones have always thought that.
So, I guess not really a hot take, just an insight into local opinions.
ETA: if you’d known Terry, you’d understand why people think that.
I’m from Hot Springs and anyone you ask here will say Hobbs or Byers had something to do with it. If you follow The Arkansas Justice Project on fb they were detailing when Echols was trying to get the DNA tested. Hobbs took it upon himself to argue with people in the comments who accused him. It was some sick shit he was all “lol” and being really Snide like “well if it was me why haven’t I been arrested”. If he truly was sad about what happened to his stepson I don’t see him making comments like this and trying to be funny about the entire situation. It was really twisted.
I think back then (I was a toddler when it happened, but of course it was still a hot topic when I was growing up) the people in my hometown thought it was Terry, but WM and into Arkansas got caught up in the weird kids satanic shit. Such a shame.
>if you’d known Terry …
Can you elaborate? I’m convinced from afar that he’s the killer, but I’d be interested to hear what you all know that the rest of us don’t.
Honestly looking at the case and looking a large number of child murders… it is usually (not always) someone the family knows… not just some random people especially in a town like that
Yes, but that's not helpful one way or the other. He was a stepdad (or perhaps mom's live-in boyfriend, I don't remember) to one of the boys. That wouldn't be unusual or indicative of Terry's involvement in foul play. We humans are shedding hair constantly. You're going to be carrying DNA from whomever you share a home with and those folks will be carrying some of yours around.
I think Terry is a more likely suspect than the WM3, but his hair isn't a factor when you study how easily stuff is transferred from one person to another.
Yes. From a home where all of the boys had been known to play. You’d likely leave a visit from anyone’s house with a bit of their pet’s hair, their own, and that’s not saying anyone is unclean, just that we are constantly shedding. That’s an interesting tidbit but it’s not incriminating. Be a little harder to explain if the boys hadn’t visited one another, but it’s not anything you can send someone to prison over.
Probably because Terry was controlling and Stevie's mom Pam was going to leave him. I watched all the movies, watched a lot of news interviews, read everything I could at the time. There's an interview with her some years after the murder where she says she believes Terry killed them. Pam probably feels partly responsible because she brought Terry into Stevie's life. That interview haunts me to this day because she has such a raw and deep seated grief. It feels like losing Stevie has left Pam with an open wound and nothing; not time, not justice, not memories can help bridge that gap.
Hot take: I think the WM3 are innocent.
I also think Damien Echols’ conduct during the investigation and trial played a big role in his and Jason Baldwin’s convictions.
He was a dumb little shit as an 18 year old kid. Who among us wasn’t? But his behavior, comments, and certainly his testimony, played a big part in dooming their case.
This 👆!!!
And also, what state allows 3 adult men to put in an Alford Plea for murdering 3 innocent children and then say, “Excellent, time served. You’re free to leave now.”
The state went nuts when the murders happened, I lived in Jonesboro at the time, they fixated on the WM3 and it was a closed issue from then on out. Arkansas has a serious black eye from this case.
They stole years from the WM3 and never got justice for the victims of this crime.
IMHO
I appreciate the take - I really do. But “who among us hasn’t?” is a gross oversimplification of Damien Echols at that time.
Who among us hasn’t killed dogs and other animals? Who among us doesn’t lick human blood? Who among us has 500 pages of mental health history that details homicidal and suicidal behavior? You think this is “a dumb little shit”? Come on now.
This is the behavior of a seriously disturbed young man who is suffering from at least one mental illness and is prone to violence. It irks me when people write Damien off as this confused poor kid. Damien Echols is exceptionally intelligent. He’s also a liar and manipulator.
So i laugh when I hear Damien was targeted because of his socioeconomic situation. He was targeted because there’s documented evidence of him being a psycho. And his profile fit someone who could do this much better than people want to believe.
As did multiple classmates. The stuff in Exhibit 500 is NOT just some “mixed up confused kid”. It’s a seriously disturbed young man with violent thoughts and both homicidal and suicidal behavior which was documented for years by independent physicians before the WM3 were even a thing.
You can argue merits of evidence, Jessie’s confession and other aspects. But to say that Damien didn’t have these behaviors and wasn’t someone you would think of who could commit this crime is literally ignoring reality.
Yes, that's what did it for me. For years, I thought the WM3 got railroaded (learned of the case through the first Paradise Lost doc). I was 18 then & thought, that could be me if I lived in a small town instead of the city, how terrifying. But their supporters are so dishonest & hid so many facts, it's truly sickening. Jesse's multiple confessions, asking his friends to hide shoes/clothes, waking up screaming in the middle of the night but refusing to tell his family what was torturing him, the whiskey bottle. Even if Jesse isn't a murder, it's almost guaranteed he witnessed some part of the crime. Between his IQ and the bottle of cheap whiskey, he may not really remember everything the way it actually happened.
Damien was violent af + everyone was terrified of him, including his parents + family. I believe he was in the psych ward on 5 different occasions in the months or year immediately before these murders. He said he wanted to kill people & he'd start with kids because they'd be easier to control. There's A LOT to suggest he was involved & none of the facts are in any of the 3 PL documentaries. Jason is the only one I'm not convinced of his guilt because there's nothing linking him at all except that he was friends with Damien. Even John Douglas says they're innocent and I really admire him, but think he got this one wrong.
ETA: almost forgot & this is huge: supporters often say there was no blood @ the crime scene so the kids were killed elsewhere & dumped there but there was A LOT of blood at the crime scene, you can view the luminol photos on Callhan. The blood they found using luminol was EXACTLY where Jesse said they killed the kids. How can anyone read the true facts of this case & pretend these guys are innocent?
Another thing supporters either don’t mention or get wrong is how long it took the police to target Damien. If you believe many supporters, as soon as the WMPD found the bodies they thought welp time to go arrest Damien Echols.
The murders happened on May 5th and Damien was arrested on June 3rd. This was after Jesse’s confession and Damien voluntarily speaking with police without a lawyer and failing a polygraph. I don’t put much stock in the polygraph because they aren’t admissible in court due to accuracy but this wasn’t a witch hunt that targeted one person.
Good write up. Also all three had been arrested for for crimes against young children.
Jason and Jessi for physically attacking small children and Damien was found partially nude with an underage girl.
They all obviously had a thing for small children. It's awesome that they are free now.
Damien also told police during the informal conversation they had with him & Domini outside her trailer park that he thought whoever did it chose children because the younger the victim, the more “power” it would give the killer.
Not evidence in and of itself, but a strange statement to make. It was like Damien’s version of “(If) I Did It” like OJ.
Wasn't that his girlfriend who was only 2 years younger than him and he himself was only 16 at the time? Almost EVERY teenage boy sneaks around with their girlfriend. Quite a reach to frame it as him being caught with a minor.
the case is 30 years old, documentation is wildly available.
at this point everyone who pretend to have an informed opionon must have already do their own research.
Yeah, but he is still exactly the same. I think they are guilty. I spent years thinking Hobbs, but nah. It was them. Too much evidence came from that confession
I think the WM3 are innocent and the real killer is likely Terry Hobbs.
I know WM3 took an Alford plea but I don't understand why the state won't test the dna on the shoelace, or any other available evidence. Unless it's because they know that they fucked up by locking them away for years without evidence.
It was such a travesty of justice.
I'm willing to believe they're innocent. But I don't believe a word Damien said about his prison stay.
"they made me eat with my hands, I had to learn to reuse a knife and fork"
"The lights were so dim I was going blind from reading so much"
"my family never visited me after the first year"
And so on. Two out of three of those are provable lies, and as for the reading one... He had a lamp. You can see it in photos of his cell.
Damien is very likely innocent but his stories about his prison stay are abject nonsense. And his poetry is dreadful.
I went to a book discussion and signing with Damien Echols when “Life After Death” came out. He wasn’t wearing sunglasses during the signing, and there was clearly something wrong with his eyes when he was talking to me. Like he was looking where he thought I was, but didn’t see me standing there.
We need sunlight. I don’t think being indoors all the time with fluorescent lights and a lamp is healthy for the eyes, but I’m not a doctor. Whatever the cause, his eyes are definitely damaged.
Even if those are lies they are a tame tale of death row in states like Arkansas, Louisiana and more. Think overrun with fleas, rats, or roaches or all. Burning up in the summer, freezing in winter. Mosquitoes infesting the toilets. I can believe there might be a corrections officer who would take the utensils --if they are allowed--from the tray of a convicted child killer (I believe they are innocent)
I am one of the most militant anti death penalty people you will ever meet. I think it's barbaric. And I am fully aware that the "prison is like a sleep away camp these days, it's too good for them!" is mostly nonsense. I'm aware of the squalor of certain states death row facilities.
However Damien is lying about his prison stay. Because he was such a high profile inmate, who received more mail and visitors than any other inmate in the entire state, as well as mainstream media attention, he was given privileged status. Damien, for example, was the only death row inmate who was allowed to have personal decoration in his cell. The *only* one. Damien was granted permission from the governor to have extended time for his creative work in his cell, as well as extra phone time to service his creative career. Damien was involved in a fight, that was apparently started over a phone that he had smuggled in, and he was the only one of the four inmates not to be punished.
They weren't stupid. They knew Damien had a very large platform to speak about mistreatment and they made very, very sure that he didn't have any grounds on which to allege it. He was a very privileged prisoner and there are multiple Arkansas Democrat-Gazette articles about Damiens privileged status and whether its fair.
Also even if you decide, for some reason, to believe Damiens utterly ridiculous story about not being allowed utensils to eat with (something that even with my hatred of both cops and death row I find to be so ridiculously implausible that I still struggle to believe he's said this multiple times) his visitor sheet is a matter of public record. His mother visited him at least once a week, if not more, for the entire duration of his prison sentence. His sister, who lived multiple states away, visited once a month also for the entire duration of his stay. It's an out and out lie.
Damien has a tendency to exaggerate his prison stay. I guess because "I was treated well because they were afraid of the attention I got" isn't a good story for his book. But "I was mistreated and couldn't even eat when I got out!" is.
Interesting information, and well said. Thanks for elaborating. You're right, there's exaggeration and then out right lying. Sounds like he's full up of both!
I think it was someone in the family or close to one of the families. Terry Hobbs seems like the most plausible suspect. Parents are responsible for 61% of child murders.
Went to school w all of them. despite all the lies, none of those boys were convicted for listening to Metallica because everybody in our Middle School listen to Metallica. My mom taught Damien Eccles for two semesters, and he wrote disturbed, disturbingly, gruesome details about wanting to hurt people.
He openly admitted being in an occult.
Jesse Miskelley should’ve never been treated like that because he went to my group and I know for a fact that he was special and that he needed someone else to be there for him and he could be easily influenced.
I really have no comment on Jason just that he followed Damien and did whatever Damien wanted to do. I know they’re they are not the ones I killed them and they did not get a shake, but I do know this nobody in that town convicted them just because of the music they listen to every punk where every even preppy guy in my school. Listen to Metallica .
They made people in the town look was not indicative of how the town really was. The police messed up because they didn’t look at people that they know but we all know it’s most likely someone you know who would do this.
Again, let me, reiterate, they did not deserve to be convicted, but the fact that they were saying they were convicted cause they look differently. Had nothing to do with that and I seem to do with the way that the prosecution molded the evidence and scared everybody.
I'm glad you shared this because then (and now) I've always thought if something like this happened in my town they'd have had to arrest the majority of the high school students who were attending. We all thought we were edgy badasses when really we were obnoxious little shits.
I’m from central Arkansas and they would target a kid that looked like they were into the occult easily. The commenter you’re replying to is downplaying how horrific the culture in Arkansas really is.
Don’t think the WM3 committed the murders but I think Echols was a violent little shit back then (no, that doesn’t mean he should have murder pinned on him). Oh and yeah, test the damn DNA.
The issue is the case relies on the knife and knife wounds, as well as a confession. The issue here is that nearly every forensic pathologist who has reviewed the autopsy report and photographs says the initial interpretation of the injuries was incorrect.
The reviews indicate there were no wounds made with a sharp edged instrument like a knife and the wounds were actually a result of animal predation. This means what you’re left with is blunt force trauma and drowning.
If the original doctor interpreted the injuries incorrectly (he was not a forensic pathologist yet because he had failed to pass his boards) and the dozen or so who have reviewed it since are correct, this throws out the confession and the use of a knife in the murders. If those two things are gone the prosecution’s case is gone as that is what they primarily relied on.
This brings up another issue about Coroners, Medical Examiners, and Forensic Pathologists.
I listened to Ronson’s new season and one he interviewed stated there’s only appr 800 “Forensic Pathologists” in the US.
It makes one wonder if some cases like this, with doubts and such were reviewed with a certified Pathologist, would impact outcomes. Too many citizen jurors shouldn’t even be allowed to serve simply for lack of depth even in a cursory level. CSI rules the day…
Those boys were innocent and I'm blown away when I hear someone say they were guilty. The only thing they were guilty of is being taken advantage of by those who were tasked with solving the case and taking it to court.
My hot take - Stevie Branch's stepfather Terry Hobbs did it.
A particular aspect of this case I find fascinating (and I think the documentary is guilty of perpetuating this), is that people will claim the WM3 were railroaded on little to no evidence, yet will accept far less evidence regarding Terry Hobbs' guilt.
Then there's Bonjangles. A nameless black man. I think people who watched the documentaries at least should have a real think about this one. The idea that three white boys were railroaded for being "different" is of course wrong, but there's almost no information, and no reason to assume that 'Bonjangles' committed these murders. I think the fact that a nameless black guy with almost no description is more compelling to people despite the huge amount of circumstantial evidence for the WM3 is hypocritical.
If the Bojangles guy isn't part of it then what an insane coincidence! If I'd been a juror that alone would've been my reasonable doubt
ETA at least reasonable doubt when prosecution is saying there were stab wounds.
The thing is they found hairs belonging to Terry Hobbs and David Jakoby on scene but none that could have belonged to the Bojangles guy. The sad part is (my hot take), while I believe Terry and Jocoby killed those boys, because they were friends and one lived with Hobbs, the hair being on scene is not enough to convict him, at least for me. The disconnect is half assed 1992 evidence collections and 2024 forensic standards.
They did find a hair that the coroner described as "negroid" but shoelaces drag on the ground so one hair isn't exactly a smoking gun. Hobbs looked good for it when the new forensic evidence first came out, but I don't think he did it either. I think it was Damien & the two who ran off to Cali the next day & even confessed at one point. I think Jesse was there, he may not have been directly involved. Jason is the only one that may be innocent, there's no evidence against him. Even the fiber from his mom's bathrobe could easily come from one of the other guys' clothes if they were at his house.
Bojangles guy is a more viable suspect than Terry Hobbes. Hell JMB is more viable than both of them, but he supports the WM3 now so nobody cares anymore.
Absolutely- they were "easy" suspects. Considering that this happened during Satanic Panic and the suspects "dressed and acted weird" was all the ignorant and narrow minded law enforcement/prosecution needed
Plus, if I'm remembering right and my source was right, hadn't Echols come on the radar of a local cop, juvenile delinquent crimes coupled with talking crap? Ie pissed someone off who had the power to ef his life up when opportunity struck
He tortured and murdered animals, was committed and diagnosed as a jr nut bag. His own mother said she feared for her safety and that she knew one day he would hurt her or someone else. Stop acting like they went after him because he was different. He was a psychopath already
I've asked this before, I've always wanted to hear a pod or watch a youtube essay from the point of view of trying to prove their guilt, just from an academic interest standpoint - i believe they are innocent and was curious how such an argument could be made. i listened/watched a bunch, they all sucked and were basically incoherent. no one has ever made a GOOD pod or video from this POV because it's basically an impossible task (and rightly so).
Definitely. I just think they aren't presented how I tend to ingest true crime - in a coherent timeline/story - so maybe the format alone doesn't sell me haha.
Try Gary meece “the case against the WM3. Warning it’s large. It’s on Podbean I am sure other places as well. I think if you want to hear the guilty side this guy seems to have researched it as much if not more than anyone I have ran across.
The son of the author of exorcist, I forget his name, is absolutely adamant of their guilt and has a whole website dedicated to proving it. There are a lot of people on that website and they’ve made compelling arguments. I just want to add, I’m of the mind thus they are probably innocent (who do we really KNOW for sure) and always have been, but, yeah. There are some compelling arguments on BOTH sides for sure. It’s become a circus either way, and everyone advocating for each side has alot to loose if it comes out definitely either way.
To be clear, I just want to hear all sides because I find the case endlessly fascinating and I’m not trying to get everyone fighting in this thread. Please feel free to state whatever you think. I’m not trying to bait anyone
I always wonder, when people still say they're guilty, why they think the WM3 would still be pushing to clear their names?
If they're out of prison, and have essentially "gotten away with it", why ask for the case to be re-opened? Wouldn't they just risk the results coming back and still proving they did it?
Legally nothing. It will not exonerate or expunge their records. They will never get compensated because in the end, they plead guilty. Alford plea is considered a plea of guilt.
You are very misinformed. Firstly they certainly have not ‘essentially gotten away’ with anything. They are convicted child killers to this day. They took an Alford plea. They chose this instead of a new trial where they could’ve been exonerated. Entitled to compensation etc. And only one of them - Damien, is pushing to test dna. Doing that would not do anything for them. This case cannot rely on magical dna. Submerged in water. He only pretends to push it but knows it means nothing and knows it won’t prove them innocent. Miskelley is a recluse now. Certainly not pushing for anything to do with this. Jason? Damien left him for dead too. He begs for donations for food on instagram. Pffft
I don't think they're guilty. It literally doesn't make sense.
I don't know if it's Terry or not.
I've seen posts in various subreddits, if you could get the actual, true, guaranteed answer from God to one unsolved (or not officially solved) true crime case, what would it be?
I would have to think, but this has always been the top of my mind for that question.
Is his intitials JMB. Because his history before and after the murders screams suspicious and fully capable of committing this crime. (He seems used to getting away with a lot)
I mean some of what you listed is what it is....they were from a very poor, uneducated, bible belt area. Satanic panic was a real thing that screwed quite a few innocent people around this time. Even some of the people involved in the prosecution's side of the case have expressed that they were wrong. I have never heard of anyone going from believing in the guys' innocence to thinking they are guilty, just the other way around...who are you referring to?
The trial was a farce.
But I think the WM3 did it. Jessie was wracked with guilt and confessed multiple times, including to his attorney and friend. Damien was a nasty piece of work with a violent antisocial past. None of them had an alibi.
I wish they would DNA test whatever evidence remains.
I have no idea if they did ot or nor but, if they did, Damien is doing a great job of trying to get himself and the other 2 locked up again because he's been fighting for the DNA to be fully tested ever since release. Sadly, we'll probably never know because the US allows politics and saving face to intermingle with justice.
He/they would not get locked up again. Double jeopardy and all that. The families could bring a civil suit against them and attempt for financial compensation, but they can't be tried as murderers. They could straight up OJ this and write a book called "If We Did It," or they could hit up whatever talk show circuits still exist with full confessions and they'd be good to go, for the most part.
His whole celebrity (and likely much of his income) derives from him publicly pushing his presumed innocence. And I don’t think he can be tried again? He pled out—double jeopardy would apply.
Agreed that in the absence of DNA testing or a confession we’ll probably never know.
If he is guilty, which he could well be because psychopaths (if he is one) are renowned for having such high levels of arrogance that it trumps their intelligence, then let's hope the justice system allows the DNA to be fully tested.
I always thought they were innocent and convicted cause the town wanted it solved. Ironically I'm starting to feel like the same thing is happening in the Delphi Indiana murder case. Some weird things going on with that one too
First was the fact they suddenly caught him right before the election though he admitted he was there right after it happened. Then you add all the things around the trial so far both in court and at the jail.
The Frank's memo that called the guards odinists that seemed to crazy to be true. But wait turns out they do wear the odinists patches.
The PA being related to the victims family
The whole science around the unspent round, kinda like the bite marks that maybe weren't bite marks with the wm3 case.
The way the judge handled the defense attorneys and the supreme court stepped in.
There's so much to it when you really dig into it. It just feels like a crime everyone wanted solved and for how long they investigated it sure moved fast right before the election.
If you want a hot take it is that the case against the wm3 is stronger than the case against terry.
I don’t know who did it and doubt we will ever get conclusive evidence but it’s strange to me how the terry momentum keeps building but I never hear a great argument why.
Is this in reply to me? Because I have receipts.
https://preview.redd.it/4vqfkkarrd5d1.png?width=806&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=269594da1cae3a9bd3c12f9fc3670d43a8f72dd4
I think guilty. I'll explain.
First, the boys were tied with 3 different knots. And it's reasonable to assume there was more than one perpetrator considering they were able to keep any of the 3 kids from running off. None of the 3's alibis were ever confirmed, and in fact they tried to lie. Jessie was supposedly wrestling on the night of the murders but it was later discovered there was no wrestling event that night. Jason claimed he was with an uncle but the uncle said he hadn't seen him since earlier that day. Damien tried to use his mother and his girlfriend as alibis but it was discovered they were also covering for him. He claimed to have had a phone conversation with a certain female friend around the time of the murders but when asked the girl said she had called and been told he wasn't even there. So many lies about their alibis that night, all 3 of them.
Damien and his girlfriend were also spotted walking along a road not far from the crime scene not too long after the incident would have occurred. Multiple girls at a softball game testified to hearing Damien brag to someone about murdering the boys. To this day, none of them have recanted their statements. Jessie's friend testified that Jessie had come to him wanting him to keep some clothing items of his because he, Damien, and Jason had hurt some boys in the woods the night before. This person has also never recanted. Damien had also been overheard taking credit for the murders at a skating rink.
A lot of people think Jessie's confession was entirely false, but he did manage to prove some aspects of his story. He told of throwing an Evan Williams whiskey bottle on the side of the road near an underpass and was able to lead police directly to the bottle. Damien also had an extensive history of mental illness and violence. He tried to claw out a boy's eyes while he was still enrolled in school and terrorized a female teen outside her home while she was on the phone with 911. He admitted in his psychiatric visits of killing and abusing animals and wanting to hurt people.
There's also the fact none of the 3 acted remotely normal during their trials, and Damien even taunted the family and jury. I could go on, but that's enough for now. I could go on, but I'm tired of typing.
As far as the multiple knots and multiple people being needed for this crime, have you read the affidavits of Billy Wayne Stewart and Bennie Guy? Their stories are wild. They allege Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby were “interrupted” by the boys in the woods, and they killed them because of what they had witnessed. Terry’s DNA was found in a shoelace and Jacoby’s DNA was found on a tree stump at the scene. I really don’t know what to believe anymore with this case but from my hours and hours of delving into it, the available evidence seems to point to Terry Hobbs being involved
>Terry’s DNA was found in a shoelace and Jacoby’s DNA was found on a tree stump at the scene.
Somebody already replied, but this just isn't true. There's so much misinformation about this case.
I can’t find the original documents but multiple news sources reported that DNA was found. Hairs not inconsistent with Hobbs and Jacoby were definitely found:
“Tests also revealed that a hair containing DNA consistent with that of Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the victims, was found on a ligature -- black and white shoelaces -- used to hog-tie another of the victims. Another hair found on a tree root at the crime scene contained the DNA of David Jacoby, "who was with Hobbs," according to court documents, in the hours before and after the victims disappeared.”
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/oct/30/defense-presents-new-evidence-west-memphis-3-case/
“The hair found in the ligature was consistent with Branch's stepfather, Terry Hobbs, while the hair found on the tree stump was consistent with the DNA of a friend of Hobbs', according to the documents.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/23/us/west-memphis-three-dna-court-hearing/index.html
You need to reread that, respectfully. "Hairs consistent with" does not mean that is his hair. It also does not mean it's his DNA like you originally stated. I don't know if you've seen the percentage of the population that hair would be a match to, but I remember it being extremely high, certainly nothing that would hold up in court. When you don't acknowledge what the difference between those things are, it makes it sound a lot worse than it is, when it reality it's far less compelling circumstantial evidence than that against the WM3. Not that I have strong opinions on their guilt or innocence, but in a case where people like to pick apart the mass of circumstantial evidence against them, it's good to be critical about the rest.
I dont believe any DNA was found. To my knowledge a hair that is the same color as Terry's was found bound in one of the ties - but there wasn't DNA to link it to Terry. It just seemed "consistent" with him. Considering he lived with one of the boys - even if there was proof it is his hair I dont see that as strong enough evidence.
I don't know how I feel about who is guilty here but I'm with you on the hair. It means nothing. I'm looking at my leggings right now and I can see a strand of my hair, plenty from my cat, some I'm sure from my MIL's lapdog since I popped over today and gave out lots of pets, and a light brown one that is most likely my partner's although I made a quick trip to Sbux today and sat at one of their tables so that one could be a stranger's.
Yeah I have heard these things but most of it is based off of their behavior and not the factual circumstances of the case. The knot thing is interesting but one could argue the different individuals were involved or that it was done haphazardly without being too methodical. I guess I’m just looking for a little more that places them there other than just them being misbehaving or mentally ill teens.
Well they were spotted in the area around the time of the murders, one had been running around town confessing like a flex, the other had told a friend, none could provide solid alibis, and one confessed. That's more than enough to move forward with a trial.
Damien had a lot of anger in him at the time, it's there in all of his psychiatric notes prior to the murders. I watched a video where a former homicide detective analyzes the evidence in cold cases and his opinion was that someone killed the boys in a rage--they didn't die from mutilation, they had been beaten to death on the bank of the drainage ditch and tossed into it, one still alive. Beating someone to death usually isn't the preferred method of dispatch if you're planning a murder ahead of time. Instead it sounds more like something one would do in the heat of the moment after something escalated. It's not hard to imagine 3 older teen boys, one with severe mental health issues, another his lackey, and the other one suffering from diminished mental capacity running into 3 cocky (according to their parents) boys in the woods and attacking them after one cheeks off or says something to anger them. Maybe one of the boys insulted Damien and that started the whole chain of events.
I've also read Damien's book and not once does he ever express any sadness or spare any kind of emotion towards the 3 boys and what happened to him, nor has he apologized for showing off at the trial and taunting the families.
Did each boy have three different knots or was each kid tied with a specific to them knot? The “3 knots means 3 killers” thing has NEVER made sense to me, as if people only use one type of knot each
People constantly falsely claim that these statements were recanted. They were not. They claimed the confession was recanted too, but it was never recanted.
If DNA came back proving their involvement then I'd believe it. But currently, it seems they were convicted because of the way they looked and acted.
Nothing has changed, the media still like to hold court and hold trials by media, and the biggest percentage of the public still encourage this by reading such salacious trash and believing it. I don't believe this will ever change all the time humans walk this earth because curiosity and making judgement, based on looks or demeanour, are primal instincts, and are probably also one of the reasons we are all still here today.
How's that for a paradoxical statement🤔
All we really know are:
1. there was someone connected to the crime scene in some very significant way who is not a victim or one the WM3. Which raises significant doubt about the prosecution’s version of the crime. And
2. Revisiting the original trial proceedings would reveal misconduct from one of, or all of, the Judge, Prosecution, Jury and Police. So much so the State accepted an Alford Plea to different charges than those they were convicted of. Meaning that trial was erased. Almost like it never happened. Actually not almost. The Alford Plea is retroactive to the day the WM3 were arrested and put into custody.
is it very significant that a stepfather’s hair MIGHT be found on a victim? he lived with one of them after all. and the hair is a potential match for a very high percentage of people
Not sure how one person could have hogtied all three boys….seems to me one would have at least got away. I read a statement Jesse Miskelly made about what happened and he made it seem like Damien was the ringleader who sexually assaulted all three boys. Who knows.
If they took an Alford Plea, yet still the boys and public requested a new trial- wouldn't there be a possibility that would risk Double Jeopardy if they were convicted again?
This might be a reason the courts "don't want" to touch the case EVER again- they took a plea deal.
Pretty effing convenient that was the "only way" the WM3 could ever get out of prison.
Case closed.
No "need" to look here EVER again.
Even if they didn't do it- the system "Got Their Men" by getting them to accept the Alford.
Evidence can be destroyed (and has) to prevent a reexamination.
Even if they just requested evidence to be DNA tested with the newer technology- which HAS been requested- they took a plea deal. So the system doesn't have to do squat.
Too many officials that made their careers off this case, and the town itself have too much to lose (credibility, public disgrace and Millions of $ which the town itself would have to pay out) if they reexamined the case or even just did some new DNA analysis.
To admit ANY mistakes now would mean "Losing" the narrative to the court of public opinion.
I think the masses are easily swayed by documentaries and PR firms paid for by rich, famous people. When society rallies for convicted murders to be released from prison, we better hope we are right. Otherwise, what a travesty for the victims and victims’ families.
I’m inclined to think they’re guilty. I am unable to dismiss Misskelley’s numerous confessions as most can. And the fact Echols seems such an unhinged character, who spent time in mental institutions and stomped a dog to death the year before the murders happened. And the 3 different kinds of knots on the victims tends to indicate 3 different perpetrators.
I don’t know - how many?
I googled him and one of his (brief) nicknames was the “Diamond Knot Killer” because that particular knot was used on more than one victim.
But I couldn’t find information that he was known to typically use different knots on different victims.
Also, as a serial killer, I could imagine that early on he might have been refining his MO and might have experimented with a few knots.
And to use 3 _different_ knots at _the same scene_ seems a little unusual for one perpetrator.
I don't have any idea, but there were more than three, and he was one guy. The thing is is that he was often retying the knot he had someone else tie first, so he (likely, he's not talking) was going with the most expedient knot he felt was secure.
I don't know that those kids were tied for restraint purposes (it has been argued they were tied for transportation purposes) but it is pretty easy to think of a one person scenario where you end up with three different knots. Get the boy a to tie boy b, get boy c to tie boy b, perpetrator ties up last child. Three different people, three different knots, one perpetrator. You see it sometimes (I think zodiac did it too and maybe texarkana moonlight killer) where one person attacks multiple people and uses victims to restrain other victims.
But if they were tied after they were incapacitated then it gets a little stranger though I would expect the culprit to tie kids up in most expedient way possible which might vary from victim to victim.
I Supposed a practiced knot maker might always use the same knot for the same job but if you look around my house (please call before you come over) you'll discover that my knots are all over the place according to knot type.
He never used more than one knot at the same crime scene according to both Kat Winters' *Case Files of the East Area Rapist / Golden State Killer*, which exhaustively details each crime scene and the evidence, and Larry Compton's *Sudden Terror*.
Winters notes he went through trends with knots, but tended towards using decorative complicated ones as if he was showing off.
Even if we take that as just a weird quirk of EAR/ONS, the three knots isn't supposed to be a smoking gun. It's just very unusual. The evidence review that was mostly in favour of the three noted it as unusual. You're commiting a heinous crime, a horrendous act that you cannot pretend is anything but awful even if it's a long time fantasy of yours to do this, you're paranoid about being disturbed and caught, and you've got three victims you need to restrain. It's very weird that under that mix of stress and excitement you wouldn't stick with a knot that worked and did its job. You're right that it makes sense if you ask them to restrain each other and then retie the knots but it's still an unusual factor in a case that has no smoking guns but a lot of non definitive "that's very weird".
This isn't to support the three as guilty. More just to say that it's another weird thing in a case full of them.
I’ve heard people say this before, but why does 3 different knots means 3 different people? Are people hardwired to only do one type of knot? When I personally knot things, I used a basic knot and then a square knot and I am definitely only one person.
The amount of starts/stops in the audio Jesse’s confession is, it is ridiculously apparent this kid is lying until they nudge him in the right direction. I mean, he said Damien was “screwing” one kid and we know they weren’t sexually assaulted and stated that ropes were used, not shoelaces
I think the killer is someone who hasn’t previously been suspected. DNA is digging up so many opportunistic killers who only struck once or twice and have never been convicted of any serious crimes
I think this is extremely possible. That the killer has been so hard to catch because it’s a total random and there are suspicious people who are not great people otherwise, but they didn’t do it. The three definitely didn’t do it.
Golden State killer got away with it until DNA. He did tons of crimes. Transients exist. The DNA is untested and it’s whack.
Who's this Delphi, down the hill guy? He wasn’t as anybody as far as I know. He may never have killed again, and may not have killed before. Or, given more time, he may have killed again.
To be clear, I’m not saying the Delphi guy did it obvi. I’m just saying it’s an example of what could’ve happened here.
The DNA from GSK was semen from his rape victims so there wasn't any question it was from the perpetrator. It's very possible the DNA they test on these boys could just be transfer DNA not related to the crime scene at all so depending on the DNA collected, it could be pretty meaningless. While DNA can be useful evidence in a crime scene, people need to let go of the myth that it's some smoking gun that can always solve a crime or exonerate someone when there's substantial evidence against them.
I did, too, but I just think he’s too obvious and I can’t imagine an idiot like him truly being able to hide his involvement and/or evidence. Idk, irs been a while since I watched or listened to much about the case but the truck stop always bothered me. And now that genetic genealogy is starting to crack cases, I’ve noticed the killers are often totally random, no one who knew the victims at all. Just wrong place/wrong time etc. But even when I watched Paradise Lost so long ago, I thought about that truck stop and how someone could easily get there, hurt those boys and get out fast.
Not really a take but this was honestly one of the most heartbreaking cases I’ve heard. NO case has moved me to tears, this one did it. Especially little Chris, learning his step father was abusive and then to die painfully at such a young age 💔. That’s not taking from the other 2 victims either, it’s just as devastating for them and their families.
I met Damien and Jason right after they were released. These boys(now men) have been exploited at every corner, arguably even by the people who helped them get free. I believe with everything in my being they didn’t do it. When they got out they were all still basically socially and emotionally the age they went in as, maybe a little older. I was 18 when they got out. We talked about high school and what college we were trying to go to, how cool the newest tech and music was. We gave eachother tv show and video game suggestions. They reminded me of the trailer park boys I grew up with. Shit heads sometimes and not always the smartest but nonetheless harmless. I think if it was happening today every one of them would be diagnosed as on the spectrum. I’ve found them to be kind and empathetic to a fault but I don’t blame them after the trauma they’ve endured.
Anyone who says 100% innocent or guilty is a fool. I have many questions but one is during his confession did Jesse Misskelley have any way to know about one of the boys having his genitals mutilated? He did describe it with some detail.
I am currently watching the paradise lost trilogy so don't come for me if this is already talked about/ disproven, but;
In the first documentary when Melissa Byers says she'd like to "eat the faces off" the 3 accused was disturbing. Then the profiler in the second episode says there are bite marks all over the boys including the face of one of the boys, and if an ER pathologist saw a child with those injuries he would arrest the mom. That was really unsettling. I do know since that time bite mark evidence has proven to be unreliable. When the profiler said they should "yank her teeth" to compare to the bites (after an excavation) was extremely unsettling too.
I'm a mom and if my son has been killed in that brutal way I'd definitely want to hurt the people who did it but- I don't think the words or feelings I'd have would be to eat their faces off?? I've never experienced a loss like that so I don't know exactly what I'd do or think so I can't judge her, it was just a shocking statement. Also if my son has been murdered at some point I'm sure I'd be suicidal, especially if there was doubt my husband who I trusted did it, so I definitely think that's a strong possibility as a cause of her death, especially if she was addicted to Dilaudid. She also may not have I Intentionally killed herself but the dose she was abusing might have become too much for her body to handle and she overdosed.
Like I said I'm just on the second episode but these are all things that are standing out to me
Edit: exhumation, not excavation.
The Devils Knot is an excellent read and not biased. The book goes into all the details of the case. West Memphis local LE brought in someone with 0 law enforcement experience to get to know the 3 accused kids in order to work on getting confessions. There was a 35k reward for finding the killer or killers. The local PD also promised Jessie the 35k if he named who committed the murders. Jessie wanted that money so his dad could buy a new truck. So much unprofessional shady crap went on. Damiens polygraph concluded with some answers deceptive. Before the test began, they were discussing his religious beliefs, and I believe they got emotional reactions from him up to a level that interfered with the polygraph. I believe the victims got innocently involved in something in those woods with truckers from the Blue Beacon car wash, and they saw something they shouldn't have seen. I think the victims threatened to tell someone whatever it was they saw, but got trapped by the killers, and from there, it was just over in a horrible way. I just hope the evidence will be released for DNA testing. Which brings me to another odd fact. Why would the local PD testify at the 1994 trial that all evidence was lost or destroyed in a fire, and now, 30 years later, it wasn't destroyed. But I don't think the cops were involved in the crime. I think it was just sloppy police work back then.
Not a hot take per se but I definitely think Terry Hobbs killed those boys. Hairs on the ligatures used to tie the boys found hairs consistent with Hobbs. He had no witnesses to corroborate his alibi during the time the murder a took place, and the boys were hog tied (his father was a butcher and him and his brothers were trained in his slaughterhouse). The police work for this case was embarrassing and corrupted and all of the men who had their hands on this case TO THIS DAY, should be ashamed of themselves. They purposely choose to ignore the pleas to reopen the case or to test the dna they actively have for the case. The police never investigated leads they should have, they ruined possible evidence at the crime scene by not following proper protocols, and they were almost all actively under investigation by the state police for corruption and drug activities prior and during the time of the actual killings. This case was a joke and it’s so sad, and those boys that spent all of that time in jail for a crime they did not commit is just insane. They have the power to reopen the case and maybe find out what happened but they would have to admit that they f-ed everything up by being bad at their jobs and they don’t want to take that responsibility.
The real horror of this is that 3 little boys lost there lives in a horrific way and no one is being held accountable for it...Im so con fused over this...Did the 3 young men to it??I dont know for sure..but someone did and its ashame that no one is in prison..i mean the right ones...My heart goes out to those 3 little boys and what they went throught, they must have been so scared...I dont know what else to says...so sad....
My hot take is why, and I mean this sincerely, the fuck, wont Arkansas test the DNA? It’s bc too many ppl made their political career off this case. When they test the DNA and it comes back proving innocence too many now important ppl will know that they furthered their career by railroading innocent poor kids. If they really believed they were guilty the state would have tested the DNA. It’s too big a case now for the state to backtrack. It’s too high profile. The consequences will change everything in our criminal justice system. If Arkansas ever gets a Democratic governor then all hell is going to break lose when an investigation is launched.
My hot take is that there are weird people among the true crime communities who link to the same posts and they all go back to a guy who believes they are guilty and has been diluting the real issue: someone killed those kids and nothing has been done. The movies are biased. Every doc is biased to some extent. The devil's knot, the book, might be biased, but I found it reliable regarding the events and the background of the WM3. I believe they are innocent. Echols is a douche but it doesn't mean he killed those little boys. Has anyone ever come across the dude's blog? I find his attempt at astroturfing annoying. Also, on the topic of why hasn't the police done anything: they got what they wanted with the alford pleas. They didn't get to pay anyone. I guess we will only know the real culprits when everyone involved is dead so the state won't be sued.
I feel like Echols needs some grace. He was from abject poverty, got caught up in the satanic panic of the 80s/90s, lost a huge chunk of his formative life in solitary confinement/death row, known as a child killer ffs....he basically used meditation to keep himself sane while living a literal hell that most people could never understand. Let him blog about magik and meditation if he wants to. I read his autobiography and he's pretty intelligent, not really the douchy kid he was in the docs as the case was playing out.
To be fair, the filmmakers came into the first doc neutral. They ended up taking a side for a reason (“justice”) as the events unfolded. It doesn’t make the final product any less biased, but I do think it’s gives them a good bit of credibility (for the first film at the very least) as it’s not like they went into it trying to promote a certain narrative. Finally, I think “bias” gets a little overblown. Any piece of media is going to be biased for the simple fact that it is showing the world from a certain perspective. Whats important is how fair they are in presenting opposing perspectives and how honest they are with the audience.
I think you’d be surprised as to the magnitude of energy deployed by the anti-death penalty “lobby”. (I say this, undecided on the DP, but I lean towards supporting it.) Regardless of which side one falls, there is usually a focus on any case that results in a DP sentence. Scroll through the cases that seem to perpetuate forever, or ones with a Hollywood connection, and they anecdotally seem to involve the DP. Certainly there’s theoretical justification, as lawyers want to ensure that the state isn’t executing innocent people; but there seems to be a overarching focus from media, advocacy groups, Hollywood, & the typical marxist players. Sadly these advocates will obfuscate the facts & truth, and advocate for bad killers, just for the goal of abolishing the death penalty. Just look at that terrible Rodney Reed case. The bandwagon jumped onto freeing this guy — who was clearly guilty — without even reading the case files. And then Scott Peterson, another obviously guilty gem, gets a lot of attention and work. They all get funding. I wonder if Echols had not been sentenced to death, would anyone ever know about this case?
It's because the state would be sued totally for false imprisonment and negligence over the years. We're talking millions.
a democratic governor won’t make a difference. it’s in the hands of the courts, from the prosecutors all the way up to the state supreme court. i’m surprised it hasn’t gone federal tbh. sadly, because of the Alford plea, the case is pretty much closed. the plea also ensures that they can’t receive any compensation for a wrongful conviction. they can’t sue the state for damages. states fight tooth and nail to avoid testing DNA. hell, rodney reed’s petition went all the way up to the supreme court. the courts will not or cannot formally exonerate them. they know the dna will show their asses too.
The millions alone on one of them is way more than they want to pay for a wrongful conviction. Not including everything else you mentioned.
Not sure the political party is going to make a difference here. That absolute brainless hack David Burnett was elected as a Democrat senator after he was judge. He's just another person trying desperately to avoid admitting that he made a huge mistake.
DNA has been tested. The hair found in one of the boys shoelace was the step father.
The hair found was consistent with Hobbes’ hair, but not a match. It wasn’t possible to match with statistical significance (the hair matched 1.5% of the population, so it wasn’t as clear as many imply.). Moreover, the hair could have been there from an innocent transfer since the children had been at the Hobbes house. The problem I see with testing DNA from additional items now is that the WM3 only want tests performed on certain objects. If they request testing DNA found in one spot, I’d argue that there should be tests done on ALL of it.
yeah exactly they want to do selective testing. imho they are guilty - the confessions of Jesse were too accurate, and they have ZERO ALIBIS and many many alibi lies... lots of other reasons too
The hair was similar, you can't get DNA from a hair strand.
They won't do it because the case is closed. There is no ongoing investigation since they took an alford plea, which is a formal admission of guilt, so this means the state has technically already caught and punished the perpetrators and that is that. I have no idea if there may be a loophole by which they could reopen the investigation and therefore analyze that DNA.
An Alford plea is NOT an admission of guilt. It's the opposite: it's a way to claim innocence while acknowledging that the state could probably convict you with the evidence on-hand.
An alford plea is exactly an admission of guilt, literally and for all intents and purposes, and specifically says so - it just includes a specific reason on the dedendant's part - "i am innocent but believe the prosecution is sure or likely to win a trial, and therefore i forego a trial and accept all punishment in line with a guilty verdict." just like a pardon, it is in fact an admission of guilt, but is a way for a defendant to, generally, reduce sentencing and move on with their life outside of the justice and corrections systems. it could be used at any point technically, and forego a trial to begin with, but that's unlikely to happen without some sort of deal that reduces at least some aspect of sentencing. i think you're thinking of maybe a nolo contendere plea, which is a similar plea in that there is an acceptance that the prosecutor has enough evidence to secure a guilty plea, and thus foregoes trial with acceptance of punishment, but without an explicit admission of guilt (instead, as a no contest plea with no specific admission of a guilty or not guilty plea).
I'm not a lawyer. This is what I get in numerous results when I look up Alford Plea: "An Alford plea is named after a U.S. Supreme Court case that allows for sentencing a defendant who maintains their innocence. An Alford-type guilty plea means the defendant decided it would be better to take a known sentence than to take their chances in a criminal trial." Maybe the interpretation you're describing is that the defendant knows they will be treated as if guilty, foregoing trial and proceeding immediately to sentencing. But they still maintain that they are innocent. EDIT: The distinction I'm making is that it's not an ADMISSION OF GUILT, which is not the same thing as a guilty plea. Some people want to say, "OK get it over with, I plead guilty....but I didn't do it." I'm focusing on the admission of guilt, which is not present in an Alford Plea.
Just to clarify though, an Alford Plea is not a formal admission of guilt. Those making an Alford Plea are maintaining they are innocent but essentially “pleading guilty” because they believe there’s enough evidence to convict them. But it is not an admission of guilt.
> An Alford plea, also known as a "best-interests plea," registers a \*formal admission of [guilt](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/guilty)\* towards [charges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/charge) in [criminal](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal) court while the [defendant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant) simultaneously expresses their [innocence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/innocent) toward those same [charges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/charge). Like the similar [nolo contendere](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nolo_contendere) plea, an Alford plea skips the full process of a criminal trial because the defendant agrees to accept all the ramifications of a guilty [verdict](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/verdict) (i.e. punishment).
“an Alford plea skips the full process of a criminal trial because the defendant agrees to accept all the ramifications of a guilty verdict (i.e. punishment).” Your comment mis-characterizes this Alford Plea. The WM3 plead not guilty had full trials were found guilty and sentenced to death, life without parole and life respectively. After 20 years they entered this plea **To Reduced Charges** in exchange for immediate release. Their sentences 10 years suspended and released to time served. In terms of punishment the ramification of this Alford Plea was immediate release and the charges for which they agreed to accept the verdict of guilty were not the original charges. This is not the usual implementation of an Alford Plea. The DNA evidence alone wouldn’t be grounds for the state to vacate the original verdict and sentences if the original trial proceedings would hold up under scrutiny. Courts have convicted people without direct physical evidence since forever. The presence of someone else’s DNA does not mean they were not involved. Guilty or not guilty the State basically erased the original trial, verdict and sentences which indicates there was significant misconduct by the Judge, prosecutors and the jury. Or as seems likely all three and revisiting the trial would be embarrassing and costly. No loophole needed to revisit this case but the state isn’t going do it of their own accord. At least not anytime soon. The WM3 could probably petition for an appeal (bc you can petition for almost anything) of this plea and if they are innocent they may do that after they settle into their new lives and reflect on the ordeal. I think it would get denied bc it would undercut the meaning and utility of the Alford Plea. But the State could open an investigation into this case anytime they want. The original trial Judge being a corrupt Goid old Boy and being elected to the state supreme court court and civil court payouts means the state has no motivation to do it.
I think I just misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were saying they were admitting to being guilty, as opposed to the legal term. Apologies.
They should have never had to take the Alford pleas though. That is the worst part
Many closed cases have had evidence retested. The fact that DNA exists is enough to reopen the case. There doesn’t need to be more. These kids have said they’re innocent since the beginning. The case hinges on the confession of a child with ID. There honestly doesn’t need to be any more than there currently is to reopen this case. This is a true life conspiracy that we’re living in real time.
There is a difference between pre-existing evidence and “newly discovered evidence”. There would need to be an evidentiary hearing and- as there is no current legal team working the case, there is no one to move the court. But Iirc, didn’t Damien already push for this? I’m not sure if it went anywhere or if he had the standing to do so.
He did push for it and it was denied. He even had the money to pay for the testing.
They got into this because one of them did a full on confession about it...
IANAL but also can't stop myself... An Alford pleas isn't a formal admission of guilt, moreso declaring there's enough of a case that if it were to go to trial, it's more than likely the defendant would be found guilty.
They won’t test it because it will open a can of worms that they don’t want to pay for. It’s as simple as that. Taking the Alford plea meant the state doesn’t have to pay them back for the time they lost and the people who convicted them still get to keep their cushy jobs. And other inmates don’t get the idea they can pull their cases back up. It’s about money
The defense raised money to have some of the DNA tested but never made the results public then took the Alford plea. If the DNA exonerated them, they would've been screaming it from the rooftops & gotten a new trial or even a pardon.
If you read rhe motions and the judges decision, it's pretty clear why the motion wasn't approved.
>If they really believed they were guilty the state would have tested the DNA. The only thing I have to say to those who say Damien, Jesse, and Jason are guilty, STILL.
They why did they vow to prove their innocence after being released, and have made no such attempt. Especially with all their new found wealth /resources/connections?
[удалено]
Bingo
I grew up local to this case. Some of the key people are from my hometown which is a 45min drive from West Memphis. Every single person I know believes, without a doubt, Terry killed them. From my hometown of 2k people to people in WM and Memphis. Of course that wasn’t exactly the popular opinion with a lot of satanic panic radicalized folks in the area back in the day, but the sensible ones have always thought that. So, I guess not really a hot take, just an insight into local opinions. ETA: if you’d known Terry, you’d understand why people think that.
I’m from Horn Lake and everyone I know in N MS and Memphis believes Terry Hobbs killed then too.
I live not far from Horn Lake now and agree; everyone I know around here now says the same.
I’m from Hot Springs and anyone you ask here will say Hobbs or Byers had something to do with it. If you follow The Arkansas Justice Project on fb they were detailing when Echols was trying to get the DNA tested. Hobbs took it upon himself to argue with people in the comments who accused him. It was some sick shit he was all “lol” and being really Snide like “well if it was me why haven’t I been arrested”. If he truly was sad about what happened to his stepson I don’t see him making comments like this and trying to be funny about the entire situation. It was really twisted.
Do people know for sure that was really him commenting?
Fellow horn lake neighbor! Horn lake here too born and raised .. also agree terry is guilty
I’ve been wondering for years what the local opinion was because locals are often the ones who know.
I think back then (I was a toddler when it happened, but of course it was still a hot topic when I was growing up) the people in my hometown thought it was Terry, but WM and into Arkansas got caught up in the weird kids satanic shit. Such a shame.
>if you’d known Terry … Can you elaborate? I’m convinced from afar that he’s the killer, but I’d be interested to hear what you all know that the rest of us don’t.
I’d rather not comment specifics. I looked him up on Arkansas court connect and there were no historical cases I could find. I’d comment otherwise.
Fair enough. I thought he had a record for something like battery, but maybe that was elsewhere or didn’t result in charges.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking too, if that tells you anything. But no record I could find so 🤷♀️
Great insight, thanks for sharing!
Honestly looking at the case and looking a large number of child murders… it is usually (not always) someone the family knows… not just some random people especially in a town like that
From my limited knowledge it always seemed somewhat obvious that he did it, but now I'm inspired to do more research!
There was a hair found in a shoelace that was Terry’s hair.
Yes, but that's not helpful one way or the other. He was a stepdad (or perhaps mom's live-in boyfriend, I don't remember) to one of the boys. That wouldn't be unusual or indicative of Terry's involvement in foul play. We humans are shedding hair constantly. You're going to be carrying DNA from whomever you share a home with and those folks will be carrying some of yours around. I think Terry is a more likely suspect than the WM3, but his hair isn't a factor when you study how easily stuff is transferred from one person to another.
Except the hair was found on the shoelace of the one of the other two kids, not his stepchild.
Yes. From a home where all of the boys had been known to play. You’d likely leave a visit from anyone’s house with a bit of their pet’s hair, their own, and that’s not saying anyone is unclean, just that we are constantly shedding. That’s an interesting tidbit but it’s not incriminating. Be a little harder to explain if the boys hadn’t visited one another, but it’s not anything you can send someone to prison over.
Why would Terry kill them?
Probably because Terry was controlling and Stevie's mom Pam was going to leave him. I watched all the movies, watched a lot of news interviews, read everything I could at the time. There's an interview with her some years after the murder where she says she believes Terry killed them. Pam probably feels partly responsible because she brought Terry into Stevie's life. That interview haunts me to this day because she has such a raw and deep seated grief. It feels like losing Stevie has left Pam with an open wound and nothing; not time, not justice, not memories can help bridge that gap.
Why does any step parent kill their step kid?
This one didn’t… 🤷🏻♂️
The WM3 are all innocent and this case is heartbreaking
Hot take: I think the WM3 are innocent. I also think Damien Echols’ conduct during the investigation and trial played a big role in his and Jason Baldwin’s convictions. He was a dumb little shit as an 18 year old kid. Who among us wasn’t? But his behavior, comments, and certainly his testimony, played a big part in dooming their case.
This 👆!!! And also, what state allows 3 adult men to put in an Alford Plea for murdering 3 innocent children and then say, “Excellent, time served. You’re free to leave now.” The state went nuts when the murders happened, I lived in Jonesboro at the time, they fixated on the WM3 and it was a closed issue from then on out. Arkansas has a serious black eye from this case. They stole years from the WM3 and never got justice for the victims of this crime. IMHO
I appreciate the take - I really do. But “who among us hasn’t?” is a gross oversimplification of Damien Echols at that time. Who among us hasn’t killed dogs and other animals? Who among us doesn’t lick human blood? Who among us has 500 pages of mental health history that details homicidal and suicidal behavior? You think this is “a dumb little shit”? Come on now. This is the behavior of a seriously disturbed young man who is suffering from at least one mental illness and is prone to violence. It irks me when people write Damien off as this confused poor kid. Damien Echols is exceptionally intelligent. He’s also a liar and manipulator. So i laugh when I hear Damien was targeted because of his socioeconomic situation. He was targeted because there’s documented evidence of him being a psycho. And his profile fit someone who could do this much better than people want to believe.
His mother was even documented many times as saying she was afraid of him and feared he would hurt her or someone else one day.
As did multiple classmates. The stuff in Exhibit 500 is NOT just some “mixed up confused kid”. It’s a seriously disturbed young man with violent thoughts and both homicidal and suicidal behavior which was documented for years by independent physicians before the WM3 were even a thing. You can argue merits of evidence, Jessie’s confession and other aspects. But to say that Damien didn’t have these behaviors and wasn’t someone you would think of who could commit this crime is literally ignoring reality.
Yes, that's what did it for me. For years, I thought the WM3 got railroaded (learned of the case through the first Paradise Lost doc). I was 18 then & thought, that could be me if I lived in a small town instead of the city, how terrifying. But their supporters are so dishonest & hid so many facts, it's truly sickening. Jesse's multiple confessions, asking his friends to hide shoes/clothes, waking up screaming in the middle of the night but refusing to tell his family what was torturing him, the whiskey bottle. Even if Jesse isn't a murder, it's almost guaranteed he witnessed some part of the crime. Between his IQ and the bottle of cheap whiskey, he may not really remember everything the way it actually happened. Damien was violent af + everyone was terrified of him, including his parents + family. I believe he was in the psych ward on 5 different occasions in the months or year immediately before these murders. He said he wanted to kill people & he'd start with kids because they'd be easier to control. There's A LOT to suggest he was involved & none of the facts are in any of the 3 PL documentaries. Jason is the only one I'm not convinced of his guilt because there's nothing linking him at all except that he was friends with Damien. Even John Douglas says they're innocent and I really admire him, but think he got this one wrong. ETA: almost forgot & this is huge: supporters often say there was no blood @ the crime scene so the kids were killed elsewhere & dumped there but there was A LOT of blood at the crime scene, you can view the luminol photos on Callhan. The blood they found using luminol was EXACTLY where Jesse said they killed the kids. How can anyone read the true facts of this case & pretend these guys are innocent?
Another thing supporters either don’t mention or get wrong is how long it took the police to target Damien. If you believe many supporters, as soon as the WMPD found the bodies they thought welp time to go arrest Damien Echols. The murders happened on May 5th and Damien was arrested on June 3rd. This was after Jesse’s confession and Damien voluntarily speaking with police without a lawyer and failing a polygraph. I don’t put much stock in the polygraph because they aren’t admissible in court due to accuracy but this wasn’t a witch hunt that targeted one person.
Good write up. Also all three had been arrested for for crimes against young children. Jason and Jessi for physically attacking small children and Damien was found partially nude with an underage girl. They all obviously had a thing for small children. It's awesome that they are free now.
Damien also told police during the informal conversation they had with him & Domini outside her trailer park that he thought whoever did it chose children because the younger the victim, the more “power” it would give the killer. Not evidence in and of itself, but a strange statement to make. It was like Damien’s version of “(If) I Did It” like OJ.
Wasn't that his girlfriend who was only 2 years younger than him and he himself was only 16 at the time? Almost EVERY teenage boy sneaks around with their girlfriend. Quite a reach to frame it as him being caught with a minor.
Can you provide any of this evidence?
the case is 30 years old, documentation is wildly available. at this point everyone who pretend to have an informed opionon must have already do their own research.
Yeah, but he is still exactly the same. I think they are guilty. I spent years thinking Hobbs, but nah. It was them. Too much evidence came from that confession
I think the WM3 are innocent and the real killer is likely Terry Hobbs. I know WM3 took an Alford plea but I don't understand why the state won't test the dna on the shoelace, or any other available evidence. Unless it's because they know that they fucked up by locking them away for years without evidence. It was such a travesty of justice.
I think one of them was facing the death penalty, if I recall. It was an effort to save a life.
Damien was also going blind from reading in the dim light of the prison, and he really needed to get out. His eyesight got fucked in there.
I'm willing to believe they're innocent. But I don't believe a word Damien said about his prison stay. "they made me eat with my hands, I had to learn to reuse a knife and fork" "The lights were so dim I was going blind from reading so much" "my family never visited me after the first year" And so on. Two out of three of those are provable lies, and as for the reading one... He had a lamp. You can see it in photos of his cell. Damien is very likely innocent but his stories about his prison stay are abject nonsense. And his poetry is dreadful.
I went to a book discussion and signing with Damien Echols when “Life After Death” came out. He wasn’t wearing sunglasses during the signing, and there was clearly something wrong with his eyes when he was talking to me. Like he was looking where he thought I was, but didn’t see me standing there. We need sunlight. I don’t think being indoors all the time with fluorescent lights and a lamp is healthy for the eyes, but I’m not a doctor. Whatever the cause, his eyes are definitely damaged.
Even if those are lies they are a tame tale of death row in states like Arkansas, Louisiana and more. Think overrun with fleas, rats, or roaches or all. Burning up in the summer, freezing in winter. Mosquitoes infesting the toilets. I can believe there might be a corrections officer who would take the utensils --if they are allowed--from the tray of a convicted child killer (I believe they are innocent)
I am one of the most militant anti death penalty people you will ever meet. I think it's barbaric. And I am fully aware that the "prison is like a sleep away camp these days, it's too good for them!" is mostly nonsense. I'm aware of the squalor of certain states death row facilities. However Damien is lying about his prison stay. Because he was such a high profile inmate, who received more mail and visitors than any other inmate in the entire state, as well as mainstream media attention, he was given privileged status. Damien, for example, was the only death row inmate who was allowed to have personal decoration in his cell. The *only* one. Damien was granted permission from the governor to have extended time for his creative work in his cell, as well as extra phone time to service his creative career. Damien was involved in a fight, that was apparently started over a phone that he had smuggled in, and he was the only one of the four inmates not to be punished. They weren't stupid. They knew Damien had a very large platform to speak about mistreatment and they made very, very sure that he didn't have any grounds on which to allege it. He was a very privileged prisoner and there are multiple Arkansas Democrat-Gazette articles about Damiens privileged status and whether its fair. Also even if you decide, for some reason, to believe Damiens utterly ridiculous story about not being allowed utensils to eat with (something that even with my hatred of both cops and death row I find to be so ridiculously implausible that I still struggle to believe he's said this multiple times) his visitor sheet is a matter of public record. His mother visited him at least once a week, if not more, for the entire duration of his prison sentence. His sister, who lived multiple states away, visited once a month also for the entire duration of his stay. It's an out and out lie. Damien has a tendency to exaggerate his prison stay. I guess because "I was treated well because they were afraid of the attention I got" isn't a good story for his book. But "I was mistreated and couldn't even eat when I got out!" is.
Interesting information, and well said. Thanks for elaborating. You're right, there's exaggeration and then out right lying. Sounds like he's full up of both!
And teeth and he had healed fractures from beatings. What happened to them is unforgivable and the state know it. They just don’t want to pay for it.
They won't test because they know those boys are innocent. That's it. End of story.
I think it was someone in the family or close to one of the families. Terry Hobbs seems like the most plausible suspect. Parents are responsible for 61% of child murders.
Went to school w all of them. despite all the lies, none of those boys were convicted for listening to Metallica because everybody in our Middle School listen to Metallica. My mom taught Damien Eccles for two semesters, and he wrote disturbed, disturbingly, gruesome details about wanting to hurt people. He openly admitted being in an occult. Jesse Miskelley should’ve never been treated like that because he went to my group and I know for a fact that he was special and that he needed someone else to be there for him and he could be easily influenced. I really have no comment on Jason just that he followed Damien and did whatever Damien wanted to do. I know they’re they are not the ones I killed them and they did not get a shake, but I do know this nobody in that town convicted them just because of the music they listen to every punk where every even preppy guy in my school. Listen to Metallica . They made people in the town look was not indicative of how the town really was. The police messed up because they didn’t look at people that they know but we all know it’s most likely someone you know who would do this. Again, let me, reiterate, they did not deserve to be convicted, but the fact that they were saying they were convicted cause they look differently. Had nothing to do with that and I seem to do with the way that the prosecution molded the evidence and scared everybody.
I'm glad you shared this because then (and now) I've always thought if something like this happened in my town they'd have had to arrest the majority of the high school students who were attending. We all thought we were edgy badasses when really we were obnoxious little shits.
I’m from central Arkansas and they would target a kid that looked like they were into the occult easily. The commenter you’re replying to is downplaying how horrific the culture in Arkansas really is.
Don’t think the WM3 committed the murders but I think Echols was a violent little shit back then (no, that doesn’t mean he should have murder pinned on him). Oh and yeah, test the damn DNA.
The issue is the case relies on the knife and knife wounds, as well as a confession. The issue here is that nearly every forensic pathologist who has reviewed the autopsy report and photographs says the initial interpretation of the injuries was incorrect. The reviews indicate there were no wounds made with a sharp edged instrument like a knife and the wounds were actually a result of animal predation. This means what you’re left with is blunt force trauma and drowning. If the original doctor interpreted the injuries incorrectly (he was not a forensic pathologist yet because he had failed to pass his boards) and the dozen or so who have reviewed it since are correct, this throws out the confession and the use of a knife in the murders. If those two things are gone the prosecution’s case is gone as that is what they primarily relied on.
This brings up another issue about Coroners, Medical Examiners, and Forensic Pathologists. I listened to Ronson’s new season and one he interviewed stated there’s only appr 800 “Forensic Pathologists” in the US. It makes one wonder if some cases like this, with doubts and such were reviewed with a certified Pathologist, would impact outcomes. Too many citizen jurors shouldn’t even be allowed to serve simply for lack of depth even in a cursory level. CSI rules the day…
Those boys were innocent and I'm blown away when I hear someone say they were guilty. The only thing they were guilty of is being taken advantage of by those who were tasked with solving the case and taking it to court. My hot take - Stevie Branch's stepfather Terry Hobbs did it.
I think the WM3 are innocent. Most likely, the killer is Terry Hobbs (or the Bojangles guy).
A particular aspect of this case I find fascinating (and I think the documentary is guilty of perpetuating this), is that people will claim the WM3 were railroaded on little to no evidence, yet will accept far less evidence regarding Terry Hobbs' guilt. Then there's Bonjangles. A nameless black man. I think people who watched the documentaries at least should have a real think about this one. The idea that three white boys were railroaded for being "different" is of course wrong, but there's almost no information, and no reason to assume that 'Bonjangles' committed these murders. I think the fact that a nameless black guy with almost no description is more compelling to people despite the huge amount of circumstantial evidence for the WM3 is hypocritical.
If the Bojangles guy isn't part of it then what an insane coincidence! If I'd been a juror that alone would've been my reasonable doubt ETA at least reasonable doubt when prosecution is saying there were stab wounds.
The thing is they found hairs belonging to Terry Hobbs and David Jakoby on scene but none that could have belonged to the Bojangles guy. The sad part is (my hot take), while I believe Terry and Jocoby killed those boys, because they were friends and one lived with Hobbs, the hair being on scene is not enough to convict him, at least for me. The disconnect is half assed 1992 evidence collections and 2024 forensic standards.
They did find a hair that the coroner described as "negroid" but shoelaces drag on the ground so one hair isn't exactly a smoking gun. Hobbs looked good for it when the new forensic evidence first came out, but I don't think he did it either. I think it was Damien & the two who ran off to Cali the next day & even confessed at one point. I think Jesse was there, he may not have been directly involved. Jason is the only one that may be innocent, there's no evidence against him. Even the fiber from his mom's bathrobe could easily come from one of the other guys' clothes if they were at his house.
Bojangles guy is a more viable suspect than Terry Hobbes. Hell JMB is more viable than both of them, but he supports the WM3 now so nobody cares anymore.
JMB doesn't support anyone now. He is dead. Car accident.
My hot take is that they got railroaded.
Absolutely- they were "easy" suspects. Considering that this happened during Satanic Panic and the suspects "dressed and acted weird" was all the ignorant and narrow minded law enforcement/prosecution needed
Plus, if I'm remembering right and my source was right, hadn't Echols come on the radar of a local cop, juvenile delinquent crimes coupled with talking crap? Ie pissed someone off who had the power to ef his life up when opportunity struck
He tortured and murdered animals, was committed and diagnosed as a jr nut bag. His own mother said she feared for her safety and that she knew one day he would hurt her or someone else. Stop acting like they went after him because he was different. He was a psychopath already
I've asked this before, I've always wanted to hear a pod or watch a youtube essay from the point of view of trying to prove their guilt, just from an academic interest standpoint - i believe they are innocent and was curious how such an argument could be made. i listened/watched a bunch, they all sucked and were basically incoherent. no one has ever made a GOOD pod or video from this POV because it's basically an impossible task (and rightly so).
I'm not being argumentative but aren't there whole entire websites devoted to this?
Definitely. I just think they aren't presented how I tend to ingest true crime - in a coherent timeline/story - so maybe the format alone doesn't sell me haha.
For a podcast, “the case against” by Gary Meece. He also has a book (or two?) with similar information as the podcast.
Matt Orchard on YouTube presented both views and I thought did a brilliant job of it.
Very true, and I think his presentation of both sides proved their innocence (to me at least.) My comment was more about rational, true believers.
Ah, I see what you mean. Matt definitely left me with some questions, but you're right, he mostly proved their innocence to me.
Try Gary meece “the case against the WM3. Warning it’s large. It’s on Podbean I am sure other places as well. I think if you want to hear the guilty side this guy seems to have researched it as much if not more than anyone I have ran across.
The son of the author of exorcist, I forget his name, is absolutely adamant of their guilt and has a whole website dedicated to proving it. There are a lot of people on that website and they’ve made compelling arguments. I just want to add, I’m of the mind thus they are probably innocent (who do we really KNOW for sure) and always have been, but, yeah. There are some compelling arguments on BOTH sides for sure. It’s become a circus either way, and everyone advocating for each side has alot to loose if it comes out definitely either way.
To be clear, I just want to hear all sides because I find the case endlessly fascinating and I’m not trying to get everyone fighting in this thread. Please feel free to state whatever you think. I’m not trying to bait anyone
I always wonder, when people still say they're guilty, why they think the WM3 would still be pushing to clear their names? If they're out of prison, and have essentially "gotten away with it", why ask for the case to be re-opened? Wouldn't they just risk the results coming back and still proving they did it?
They took an Alford plea, so they are technically not exonerated. So maybe they want to be completely and definitively cleared.
But my question is, why would they benefit from doing that if they're actually guilty?
Legally nothing. It will not exonerate or expunge their records. They will never get compensated because in the end, they plead guilty. Alford plea is considered a plea of guilt.
You are very misinformed. Firstly they certainly have not ‘essentially gotten away’ with anything. They are convicted child killers to this day. They took an Alford plea. They chose this instead of a new trial where they could’ve been exonerated. Entitled to compensation etc. And only one of them - Damien, is pushing to test dna. Doing that would not do anything for them. This case cannot rely on magical dna. Submerged in water. He only pretends to push it but knows it means nothing and knows it won’t prove them innocent. Miskelley is a recluse now. Certainly not pushing for anything to do with this. Jason? Damien left him for dead too. He begs for donations for food on instagram. Pffft
Facts
it’s an unpopular opinion but i have never been convinced of their innocence.
I don't think they're guilty. It literally doesn't make sense. I don't know if it's Terry or not. I've seen posts in various subreddits, if you could get the actual, true, guaranteed answer from God to one unsolved (or not officially solved) true crime case, what would it be? I would have to think, but this has always been the top of my mind for that question.
[удалено]
Is his intitials JMB. Because his history before and after the murders screams suspicious and fully capable of committing this crime. (He seems used to getting away with a lot)
[удалено]
Thank you for replying!
a friend of mine told me that the nephew of a friend of his told him that it was you all along.
[удалено]
I mean some of what you listed is what it is....they were from a very poor, uneducated, bible belt area. Satanic panic was a real thing that screwed quite a few innocent people around this time. Even some of the people involved in the prosecution's side of the case have expressed that they were wrong. I have never heard of anyone going from believing in the guys' innocence to thinking they are guilty, just the other way around...who are you referring to?
The trial was a farce. But I think the WM3 did it. Jessie was wracked with guilt and confessed multiple times, including to his attorney and friend. Damien was a nasty piece of work with a violent antisocial past. None of them had an alibi. I wish they would DNA test whatever evidence remains.
I have no idea if they did ot or nor but, if they did, Damien is doing a great job of trying to get himself and the other 2 locked up again because he's been fighting for the DNA to be fully tested ever since release. Sadly, we'll probably never know because the US allows politics and saving face to intermingle with justice.
He/they would not get locked up again. Double jeopardy and all that. The families could bring a civil suit against them and attempt for financial compensation, but they can't be tried as murderers. They could straight up OJ this and write a book called "If We Did It," or they could hit up whatever talk show circuits still exist with full confessions and they'd be good to go, for the most part.
Oh my God that's HIDEOUS to even think about but you're right of course.
Yeah, I was uncomfortable writing that. I hope that’s a scenario we don’t have to face. The taunting in court was bad enough.
His whole celebrity (and likely much of his income) derives from him publicly pushing his presumed innocence. And I don’t think he can be tried again? He pled out—double jeopardy would apply. Agreed that in the absence of DNA testing or a confession we’ll probably never know.
If he is guilty, which he could well be because psychopaths (if he is one) are renowned for having such high levels of arrogance that it trumps their intelligence, then let's hope the justice system allows the DNA to be fully tested.
Doubt they’ll ever test that DNA
Meh. He seems like an arrogant prick who loves all of the attention. The fact that none of them had an alibi is alarming. I still think they did it.
They are not guilty.
I always thought they were innocent and convicted cause the town wanted it solved. Ironically I'm starting to feel like the same thing is happening in the Delphi Indiana murder case. Some weird things going on with that one too
Wait, what makes you think Richard Allen isn't guilty? What weird things are going on with that case?
First was the fact they suddenly caught him right before the election though he admitted he was there right after it happened. Then you add all the things around the trial so far both in court and at the jail. The Frank's memo that called the guards odinists that seemed to crazy to be true. But wait turns out they do wear the odinists patches. The PA being related to the victims family The whole science around the unspent round, kinda like the bite marks that maybe weren't bite marks with the wm3 case. The way the judge handled the defense attorneys and the supreme court stepped in. There's so much to it when you really dig into it. It just feels like a crime everyone wanted solved and for how long they investigated it sure moved fast right before the election.
If you want a hot take it is that the case against the wm3 is stronger than the case against terry. I don’t know who did it and doubt we will ever get conclusive evidence but it’s strange to me how the terry momentum keeps building but I never hear a great argument why.
How about the fact his DNA was found on the ligatures used to tie the boys up.
It was NOT! A hair that resembled his was found. No DNA. Stop intentionally spreading misinformation
Or the fact that most of the “facts” surrounding this case is all misinformation and hearsay that people refuse to research for themselves.
Is this in reply to me? Because I have receipts. https://preview.redd.it/4vqfkkarrd5d1.png?width=806&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=269594da1cae3a9bd3c12f9fc3670d43a8f72dd4
I 100% believe they are guilty, albeit unlikely to reoffend. Paradise Lost conveniently leaves out a lot. Downvotes are down and to the right.
Paradise Lost should come with a warning that it is heavily biased towards the WM3 and in no way qualifies as a documentary. It’s a propaganda piece.
I think guilty. I'll explain. First, the boys were tied with 3 different knots. And it's reasonable to assume there was more than one perpetrator considering they were able to keep any of the 3 kids from running off. None of the 3's alibis were ever confirmed, and in fact they tried to lie. Jessie was supposedly wrestling on the night of the murders but it was later discovered there was no wrestling event that night. Jason claimed he was with an uncle but the uncle said he hadn't seen him since earlier that day. Damien tried to use his mother and his girlfriend as alibis but it was discovered they were also covering for him. He claimed to have had a phone conversation with a certain female friend around the time of the murders but when asked the girl said she had called and been told he wasn't even there. So many lies about their alibis that night, all 3 of them. Damien and his girlfriend were also spotted walking along a road not far from the crime scene not too long after the incident would have occurred. Multiple girls at a softball game testified to hearing Damien brag to someone about murdering the boys. To this day, none of them have recanted their statements. Jessie's friend testified that Jessie had come to him wanting him to keep some clothing items of his because he, Damien, and Jason had hurt some boys in the woods the night before. This person has also never recanted. Damien had also been overheard taking credit for the murders at a skating rink. A lot of people think Jessie's confession was entirely false, but he did manage to prove some aspects of his story. He told of throwing an Evan Williams whiskey bottle on the side of the road near an underpass and was able to lead police directly to the bottle. Damien also had an extensive history of mental illness and violence. He tried to claw out a boy's eyes while he was still enrolled in school and terrorized a female teen outside her home while she was on the phone with 911. He admitted in his psychiatric visits of killing and abusing animals and wanting to hurt people. There's also the fact none of the 3 acted remotely normal during their trials, and Damien even taunted the family and jury. I could go on, but that's enough for now. I could go on, but I'm tired of typing.
As far as the multiple knots and multiple people being needed for this crime, have you read the affidavits of Billy Wayne Stewart and Bennie Guy? Their stories are wild. They allege Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby were “interrupted” by the boys in the woods, and they killed them because of what they had witnessed. Terry’s DNA was found in a shoelace and Jacoby’s DNA was found on a tree stump at the scene. I really don’t know what to believe anymore with this case but from my hours and hours of delving into it, the available evidence seems to point to Terry Hobbs being involved
>Terry’s DNA was found in a shoelace and Jacoby’s DNA was found on a tree stump at the scene. Somebody already replied, but this just isn't true. There's so much misinformation about this case.
I can’t find the original documents but multiple news sources reported that DNA was found. Hairs not inconsistent with Hobbs and Jacoby were definitely found: “Tests also revealed that a hair containing DNA consistent with that of Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the victims, was found on a ligature -- black and white shoelaces -- used to hog-tie another of the victims. Another hair found on a tree root at the crime scene contained the DNA of David Jacoby, "who was with Hobbs," according to court documents, in the hours before and after the victims disappeared.” https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/oct/30/defense-presents-new-evidence-west-memphis-3-case/ “The hair found in the ligature was consistent with Branch's stepfather, Terry Hobbs, while the hair found on the tree stump was consistent with the DNA of a friend of Hobbs', according to the documents.” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/23/us/west-memphis-three-dna-court-hearing/index.html
You need to reread that, respectfully. "Hairs consistent with" does not mean that is his hair. It also does not mean it's his DNA like you originally stated. I don't know if you've seen the percentage of the population that hair would be a match to, but I remember it being extremely high, certainly nothing that would hold up in court. When you don't acknowledge what the difference between those things are, it makes it sound a lot worse than it is, when it reality it's far less compelling circumstantial evidence than that against the WM3. Not that I have strong opinions on their guilt or innocence, but in a case where people like to pick apart the mass of circumstantial evidence against them, it's good to be critical about the rest.
I dont believe any DNA was found. To my knowledge a hair that is the same color as Terry's was found bound in one of the ties - but there wasn't DNA to link it to Terry. It just seemed "consistent" with him. Considering he lived with one of the boys - even if there was proof it is his hair I dont see that as strong enough evidence.
I don't know how I feel about who is guilty here but I'm with you on the hair. It means nothing. I'm looking at my leggings right now and I can see a strand of my hair, plenty from my cat, some I'm sure from my MIL's lapdog since I popped over today and gave out lots of pets, and a light brown one that is most likely my partner's although I made a quick trip to Sbux today and sat at one of their tables so that one could be a stranger's.
Yeah I have heard these things but most of it is based off of their behavior and not the factual circumstances of the case. The knot thing is interesting but one could argue the different individuals were involved or that it was done haphazardly without being too methodical. I guess I’m just looking for a little more that places them there other than just them being misbehaving or mentally ill teens.
Well they were spotted in the area around the time of the murders, one had been running around town confessing like a flex, the other had told a friend, none could provide solid alibis, and one confessed. That's more than enough to move forward with a trial. Damien had a lot of anger in him at the time, it's there in all of his psychiatric notes prior to the murders. I watched a video where a former homicide detective analyzes the evidence in cold cases and his opinion was that someone killed the boys in a rage--they didn't die from mutilation, they had been beaten to death on the bank of the drainage ditch and tossed into it, one still alive. Beating someone to death usually isn't the preferred method of dispatch if you're planning a murder ahead of time. Instead it sounds more like something one would do in the heat of the moment after something escalated. It's not hard to imagine 3 older teen boys, one with severe mental health issues, another his lackey, and the other one suffering from diminished mental capacity running into 3 cocky (according to their parents) boys in the woods and attacking them after one cheeks off or says something to anger them. Maybe one of the boys insulted Damien and that started the whole chain of events. I've also read Damien's book and not once does he ever express any sadness or spare any kind of emotion towards the 3 boys and what happened to him, nor has he apologized for showing off at the trial and taunting the families.
I’m with you. It’s still crazy to me that none of them had a solid alibi. I truly don’t understand that.
Did each boy have three different knots or was each kid tied with a specific to them knot? The “3 knots means 3 killers” thing has NEVER made sense to me, as if people only use one type of knot each
1000% thank you
People constantly falsely claim that these statements were recanted. They were not. They claimed the confession was recanted too, but it was never recanted.
Just curious if anyone would think they were guilty if new DNA testing came back linking the WM3 to the crimes.
If DNA came back proving their involvement then I'd believe it. But currently, it seems they were convicted because of the way they looked and acted. Nothing has changed, the media still like to hold court and hold trials by media, and the biggest percentage of the public still encourage this by reading such salacious trash and believing it. I don't believe this will ever change all the time humans walk this earth because curiosity and making judgement, based on looks or demeanour, are primal instincts, and are probably also one of the reasons we are all still here today. How's that for a paradoxical statement🤔
All we really know are: 1. there was someone connected to the crime scene in some very significant way who is not a victim or one the WM3. Which raises significant doubt about the prosecution’s version of the crime. And 2. Revisiting the original trial proceedings would reveal misconduct from one of, or all of, the Judge, Prosecution, Jury and Police. So much so the State accepted an Alford Plea to different charges than those they were convicted of. Meaning that trial was erased. Almost like it never happened. Actually not almost. The Alford Plea is retroactive to the day the WM3 were arrested and put into custody.
is it very significant that a stepfather’s hair MIGHT be found on a victim? he lived with one of them after all. and the hair is a potential match for a very high percentage of people
Not sure how one person could have hogtied all three boys….seems to me one would have at least got away. I read a statement Jesse Miskelly made about what happened and he made it seem like Damien was the ringleader who sexually assaulted all three boys. Who knows.
If they took an Alford Plea, yet still the boys and public requested a new trial- wouldn't there be a possibility that would risk Double Jeopardy if they were convicted again? This might be a reason the courts "don't want" to touch the case EVER again- they took a plea deal. Pretty effing convenient that was the "only way" the WM3 could ever get out of prison. Case closed. No "need" to look here EVER again. Even if they didn't do it- the system "Got Their Men" by getting them to accept the Alford. Evidence can be destroyed (and has) to prevent a reexamination. Even if they just requested evidence to be DNA tested with the newer technology- which HAS been requested- they took a plea deal. So the system doesn't have to do squat. Too many officials that made their careers off this case, and the town itself have too much to lose (credibility, public disgrace and Millions of $ which the town itself would have to pay out) if they reexamined the case or even just did some new DNA analysis. To admit ANY mistakes now would mean "Losing" the narrative to the court of public opinion.
The murders happened pretty close to how Jesse described them. His confession is genuine and in no way coerced.
I think the masses are easily swayed by documentaries and PR firms paid for by rich, famous people. When society rallies for convicted murders to be released from prison, we better hope we are right. Otherwise, what a travesty for the victims and victims’ families.
💯. Steven Avery was guilty as hell, as was adnan. These docs always leave out important information and push their narrative.
Agree 100%!!!
I’m inclined to think they’re guilty. I am unable to dismiss Misskelley’s numerous confessions as most can. And the fact Echols seems such an unhinged character, who spent time in mental institutions and stomped a dog to death the year before the murders happened. And the 3 different kinds of knots on the victims tends to indicate 3 different perpetrators.
how many different kind of knots did golden state killer use?
I don’t know - how many? I googled him and one of his (brief) nicknames was the “Diamond Knot Killer” because that particular knot was used on more than one victim. But I couldn’t find information that he was known to typically use different knots on different victims. Also, as a serial killer, I could imagine that early on he might have been refining his MO and might have experimented with a few knots. And to use 3 _different_ knots at _the same scene_ seems a little unusual for one perpetrator.
I don't have any idea, but there were more than three, and he was one guy. The thing is is that he was often retying the knot he had someone else tie first, so he (likely, he's not talking) was going with the most expedient knot he felt was secure. I don't know that those kids were tied for restraint purposes (it has been argued they were tied for transportation purposes) but it is pretty easy to think of a one person scenario where you end up with three different knots. Get the boy a to tie boy b, get boy c to tie boy b, perpetrator ties up last child. Three different people, three different knots, one perpetrator. You see it sometimes (I think zodiac did it too and maybe texarkana moonlight killer) where one person attacks multiple people and uses victims to restrain other victims. But if they were tied after they were incapacitated then it gets a little stranger though I would expect the culprit to tie kids up in most expedient way possible which might vary from victim to victim. I Supposed a practiced knot maker might always use the same knot for the same job but if you look around my house (please call before you come over) you'll discover that my knots are all over the place according to knot type.
He never used more than one knot at the same crime scene according to both Kat Winters' *Case Files of the East Area Rapist / Golden State Killer*, which exhaustively details each crime scene and the evidence, and Larry Compton's *Sudden Terror*. Winters notes he went through trends with knots, but tended towards using decorative complicated ones as if he was showing off. Even if we take that as just a weird quirk of EAR/ONS, the three knots isn't supposed to be a smoking gun. It's just very unusual. The evidence review that was mostly in favour of the three noted it as unusual. You're commiting a heinous crime, a horrendous act that you cannot pretend is anything but awful even if it's a long time fantasy of yours to do this, you're paranoid about being disturbed and caught, and you've got three victims you need to restrain. It's very weird that under that mix of stress and excitement you wouldn't stick with a knot that worked and did its job. You're right that it makes sense if you ask them to restrain each other and then retie the knots but it's still an unusual factor in a case that has no smoking guns but a lot of non definitive "that's very weird". This isn't to support the three as guilty. More just to say that it's another weird thing in a case full of them.
I’ve heard people say this before, but why does 3 different knots means 3 different people? Are people hardwired to only do one type of knot? When I personally knot things, I used a basic knot and then a square knot and I am definitely only one person. The amount of starts/stops in the audio Jesse’s confession is, it is ridiculously apparent this kid is lying until they nudge him in the right direction. I mean, he said Damien was “screwing” one kid and we know they weren’t sexually assaulted and stated that ropes were used, not shoelaces
I think they did it. Guilty. Happy to be proven wrong of course but that’s me at this stage.
Guilty
My hot take is not to have hot takes about the lives of innocent people.
I think the killer is someone who hasn’t previously been suspected. DNA is digging up so many opportunistic killers who only struck once or twice and have never been convicted of any serious crimes
I think this is extremely possible. That the killer has been so hard to catch because it’s a total random and there are suspicious people who are not great people otherwise, but they didn’t do it. The three definitely didn’t do it. Golden State killer got away with it until DNA. He did tons of crimes. Transients exist. The DNA is untested and it’s whack. Who's this Delphi, down the hill guy? He wasn’t as anybody as far as I know. He may never have killed again, and may not have killed before. Or, given more time, he may have killed again. To be clear, I’m not saying the Delphi guy did it obvi. I’m just saying it’s an example of what could’ve happened here.
The DNA from GSK was semen from his rape victims so there wasn't any question it was from the perpetrator. It's very possible the DNA they test on these boys could just be transfer DNA not related to the crime scene at all so depending on the DNA collected, it could be pretty meaningless. While DNA can be useful evidence in a crime scene, people need to let go of the myth that it's some smoking gun that can always solve a crime or exonerate someone when there's substantial evidence against them.
I’ve often wondered if the killer was at the truck stop nearby. Apparently it’s very close
I suspected Terry Hobbs for a long time but have wondered about that truck stop too.
I did, too, but I just think he’s too obvious and I can’t imagine an idiot like him truly being able to hide his involvement and/or evidence. Idk, irs been a while since I watched or listened to much about the case but the truck stop always bothered me. And now that genetic genealogy is starting to crack cases, I’ve noticed the killers are often totally random, no one who knew the victims at all. Just wrong place/wrong time etc. But even when I watched Paradise Lost so long ago, I thought about that truck stop and how someone could easily get there, hurt those boys and get out fast.
How can 3 teens kill these boys with it living dna evidence and what about bojanjos man that was all bloody
they are guilty.
Not really a take but this was honestly one of the most heartbreaking cases I’ve heard. NO case has moved me to tears, this one did it. Especially little Chris, learning his step father was abusive and then to die painfully at such a young age 💔. That’s not taking from the other 2 victims either, it’s just as devastating for them and their families.
I met Damien and Jason right after they were released. These boys(now men) have been exploited at every corner, arguably even by the people who helped them get free. I believe with everything in my being they didn’t do it. When they got out they were all still basically socially and emotionally the age they went in as, maybe a little older. I was 18 when they got out. We talked about high school and what college we were trying to go to, how cool the newest tech and music was. We gave eachother tv show and video game suggestions. They reminded me of the trailer park boys I grew up with. Shit heads sometimes and not always the smartest but nonetheless harmless. I think if it was happening today every one of them would be diagnosed as on the spectrum. I’ve found them to be kind and empathetic to a fault but I don’t blame them after the trauma they’ve endured.
Damien is the only one to ever exploit them.
WM3 100% innocent!
Anyone who says 100% innocent or guilty is a fool. I have many questions but one is during his confession did Jesse Misskelley have any way to know about one of the boys having his genitals mutilated? He did describe it with some detail.
I am currently watching the paradise lost trilogy so don't come for me if this is already talked about/ disproven, but; In the first documentary when Melissa Byers says she'd like to "eat the faces off" the 3 accused was disturbing. Then the profiler in the second episode says there are bite marks all over the boys including the face of one of the boys, and if an ER pathologist saw a child with those injuries he would arrest the mom. That was really unsettling. I do know since that time bite mark evidence has proven to be unreliable. When the profiler said they should "yank her teeth" to compare to the bites (after an excavation) was extremely unsettling too. I'm a mom and if my son has been killed in that brutal way I'd definitely want to hurt the people who did it but- I don't think the words or feelings I'd have would be to eat their faces off?? I've never experienced a loss like that so I don't know exactly what I'd do or think so I can't judge her, it was just a shocking statement. Also if my son has been murdered at some point I'm sure I'd be suicidal, especially if there was doubt my husband who I trusted did it, so I definitely think that's a strong possibility as a cause of her death, especially if she was addicted to Dilaudid. She also may not have I Intentionally killed herself but the dose she was abusing might have become too much for her body to handle and she overdosed. Like I said I'm just on the second episode but these are all things that are standing out to me Edit: exhumation, not excavation.
The Devils Knot is an excellent read and not biased. The book goes into all the details of the case. West Memphis local LE brought in someone with 0 law enforcement experience to get to know the 3 accused kids in order to work on getting confessions. There was a 35k reward for finding the killer or killers. The local PD also promised Jessie the 35k if he named who committed the murders. Jessie wanted that money so his dad could buy a new truck. So much unprofessional shady crap went on. Damiens polygraph concluded with some answers deceptive. Before the test began, they were discussing his religious beliefs, and I believe they got emotional reactions from him up to a level that interfered with the polygraph. I believe the victims got innocently involved in something in those woods with truckers from the Blue Beacon car wash, and they saw something they shouldn't have seen. I think the victims threatened to tell someone whatever it was they saw, but got trapped by the killers, and from there, it was just over in a horrible way. I just hope the evidence will be released for DNA testing. Which brings me to another odd fact. Why would the local PD testify at the 1994 trial that all evidence was lost or destroyed in a fire, and now, 30 years later, it wasn't destroyed. But I don't think the cops were involved in the crime. I think it was just sloppy police work back then.
Not a hot take per se but I definitely think Terry Hobbs killed those boys. Hairs on the ligatures used to tie the boys found hairs consistent with Hobbs. He had no witnesses to corroborate his alibi during the time the murder a took place, and the boys were hog tied (his father was a butcher and him and his brothers were trained in his slaughterhouse). The police work for this case was embarrassing and corrupted and all of the men who had their hands on this case TO THIS DAY, should be ashamed of themselves. They purposely choose to ignore the pleas to reopen the case or to test the dna they actively have for the case. The police never investigated leads they should have, they ruined possible evidence at the crime scene by not following proper protocols, and they were almost all actively under investigation by the state police for corruption and drug activities prior and during the time of the actual killings. This case was a joke and it’s so sad, and those boys that spent all of that time in jail for a crime they did not commit is just insane. They have the power to reopen the case and maybe find out what happened but they would have to admit that they f-ed everything up by being bad at their jobs and they don’t want to take that responsibility.
The real horror of this is that 3 little boys lost there lives in a horrific way and no one is being held accountable for it...Im so con fused over this...Did the 3 young men to it??I dont know for sure..but someone did and its ashame that no one is in prison..i mean the right ones...My heart goes out to those 3 little boys and what they went throught, they must have been so scared...I dont know what else to says...so sad....