Saturday, October 18, 2014

Are the West Memphis Three Guilty as Charged?

Despite being released from prison, a large online contingent still believes a trio of Arkansas men are responsible for the slaying of three young children. Uncommon Journalism speaks with two prominent "non-believers" who feel the subjects of "Paradise Lost" and "West of Memphis" remain guilty of cold-blooded murder.



By: James Swift
uncommonjournalism@gmail.com
@UNJournalism

The West Memphis Three saga has resulted in something of a miniature media industry unto itself, with no less than five major feature films, dozens of books, countless magazine articles and newspaper stories too numerous to tally dedicated to the infamous Arkansas triple homicide.

On May 5, 1993, second graders Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore were viciously murdered in a wooded area, commonly referred to as Robin Hood Hills, in West Memphis, Ark. Three locals -- James Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley Jr. -- were eventually charged with the slayings, with Echols given the death sentence.

Having spent 18 years behind bars, the trio originally convicted of murdering three young boys all those years ago suddenly walked out of prison free men in Aug. 2011.

Copping “Alford pleas,” Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin all stood in a Jonesboro, Ark. courtroom and pleaded guilty to first-and-second-degree murder charges while simultaneously asserting their own innocence. With Judge David Laser vacating their previous murder convictions, the three were then speedily found guilty under a “new” trial, with the trio ultimately sentenced to 18 years and 78 days -- the time they had already served under their initial convictions.

Before the Alford pleas, hearings for an undoubtedly lengthy and costly retrial was set to begin in Dec. 2011. Prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington told the New York Times that had a new trial been held, the three most likely would have been acquitted; among other reasons, he cited the disappearance of evidence and the deaths of several witnesses since the first trial. Had the men been found wrongfully convicted, Ellington said the three could have possibly sued Arkansas for millions of dollars.

Despite being released from prison, however, the pleas did not legally exonerate the men. Indeed, in the eyes of the state, the West Memphis Three remain technically “guilty” to this very day.

A Case Saved by Hollywood?

Following the release of the 1996 HBO documentary “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” the West Memphis Three case garnered international interest, with high-profile celebrities like Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder and Peter Jackson all clamoring for a retrial.

Blossoming into a full-blown global movement, the star-studded campaign to free the Three certainly drew widespread attention to a case that, previously, had been little more than fodder for sensationalist tabloids and daytime TV talk shows.

“Without the films this would have been just a regional story that most people outside of Arkansas and Tennessee would not have heard of,” said blogger Trench Reynolds, who has been featured in Time and Rolling Stone.

Not unlike Echols, Reynolds said he was a teen who regularly wore black and listened to heavy metal music. Growing up in a staunch Catholic community, he could also relate to the highly religious trappings the Three were likewise raised in.

After watching the first two “Paradise Lost” films, Reynolds was a firm believer in the innocence of the West Memphis Three. However, as he began delving deeper into the case, doubts started to arise.

“I was finding information that was left out of the film, such as Echols’ alleged animal abuse and that Dale Griffis actually held degrees from legitimate brick-and-mortar universities,” he said.

Reynolds soon uncovered more omissions from the 1996 documentary, including several alleged admissions of guilt from those charged with the murders.

Prior to his arrest, witnesses said Echols bragged about committing the murders to several girls at a softball game. On an episode of 48 Hours, Echols himself mentioned the incident -- which he denied while on trial -- stating that his comments were made merely in jest.

Then there were Jesse Misskelley’s numerous confessions after being initially interrogated by West Memphis police on June 3, 1993.

Official transcripts indicate that Misskelley admitted guilt to his own attorney twice, at least once to prosecutors and to both fellow prisoners and police transporters.

“He couldn’t stop confessing,” Reynolds said. “Even after his own conviction.”

Key Omissions from the Documentaries

For many individuals, the documentary films “Paradise Lost” and “West of Memphis” are their introductions to both the triple homicide case and the West Memphis Three saga.

However, major evidence against the three men charged with the murders were either glossed over, downplayed, distorted or simply excluded from the films.

Perhaps the biggest misrepresentation in the films regards the length of Jessie Misskelley's interrogation. In "Paradise Lost" and "West of Memphis," it is heavily implied that Misskelley's initial questioning by police went on for 12 hours and that he was never informed of his legal rights. Official transcripts, however, reveal the actual interrogation was roughly two and a half hours long, and not only was Misskelley informed of his rights, his father gave written permission for his son to take a polygraph test -- which documents reveal he failed.

Completely excluded from either documentary films was Damien Echols' rather unsavory rap sheet. Prior to being charged with the murders, Echols had already amassed a lengthy juvenile record, with reports revealing that had a knack for getting into fights, setting fires and even ingesting the blood of his classmates.

His mental health history reveals equally disturbing behavior and ideations. A 1992 Social Security Administration service application described the youth as "homicidal," "suicidal"  and "sociopathic."


Prior to being charged with murder, Damien Echols had amassed a
lengthy psychiatric record -- more than 500 pages detailing his
mental health history were submitted as evidence during trial.
The words were handwritten by Echols himself.

Regarding their whereabouts on the night of the murders, all three of the convicted men have changed their stories several times.

On May 9, 1993, Baldwin and Echols told police they were at Jason's uncle's house at the time of the murders. The very next day, however, Echols told police a different story -- that he and his family spent the evening together, with Damien stating that he had a telephone conversation with a girl named Holly George until almost midnight. George denied this in an official police statement.

Echols would later state that he spent the evening talking on the phone to three other girls. In official statements, all three said they didn't speak with Echols until nearly 9:30 p.m. -- well after the suspected timeframe of the triple murder.

Testimonies from Baldwin's parents, brother and uncle were similarly disjointed, and Misskelley's wrestling alibi presented in "West of Memphis" conflicts sharply with earlier testimonies.

There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence to corroborate Misskelley's "confession" that he committed the murders while intoxicated. Not only did police investigators speak to a woman who said she purchased the liquor for him, a whiskey bottle was discovered in an area proximate to the murders -- the exact same brand Misskelley mentioned, in virtually the identical location he told police he had discarded it.

An Unexpected Skeptic

In at last one facet, Billy Sinclair can relate to Damien Echols -- he, too, once sat on death row.

Sinclair was convicted of murdering James Bodder during an armed robbery in 1965. He was released on parole from Louisiana’s C. Paul Phelps Corrections Center in 2006.

Writing for the prison publication the Angolite, Sinclair received the James Polk Award in 1979. The magazine he co-edited would go on to receive both the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and a Silver Gavel Award from the American Bar Association.

Sinclair said he first heard about the West Memphis Three case through Dixie Chicks frontwoman Natalie Maine’s advocacy efforts. He and his wife then watched one of Damien Echols television interviews.

“Based upon his responses to the questions, his demeanor and having spent so long in prison and understanding the prisoner mindset,” he said, “something in my instincts told me that he was not being truthful.”

Sinclair posted a blog entry discussing his thoughts on Echols. Facing a strong backlash from WM3 supporters, he soon began extensive research on the case. As with Reynolds, the information left out of the documentaries was more than enough evidence for Sinclair to believe the three men were responsible for the homicides.

“I concluded, and am still convinced, that they were guilty,” he said.

Sinclair said he found it peculiar that the Three's attorneys opted for the Alford Plea, when he believes a retrial almost certainly would have led to the men being acquitted.

"What most people don’t understand about Alford pleas is that before the court can accept such a plea, you have to admit that the State has enough evidence to convict you, should the case go to trial," Sinclair said. "This is not a situation where the district office attorney’s caved to public pressure, this is a case where Echols’ attorneys chose to open the Alford plea negotiations."

In prison, Sinclair said he met a man who was locked up for 20 years. He rejected a guilty plea deal that would have freed him, because he was determined to establish his own innocence.


"My gut feeling is that if a person is truly innocent, who has spent 18 years fighting for his innocence," Sinclair said, "he’s not going to go and plead guilty to killing three 8-year-old boys unless he’s guilty."

A Virtual Line in the Sand

In the online sphere, the West Memphis Three debate is divided into two camps -- “believers” in the innocence of the convicted and “non-believers" who feel that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley are indeed responsible for the triple murder.

With the Three released from prison, "nons"  frequently criticize the "believers" base for transforming from political activists to something more akin to a traditional fan club.


Much debate rages online, regarding the true culprits behind the 1993
triple homicide. While WM3 supporters have trotted out several
"alternative" suspects, "non-believers" on the Web remain convinced
of the Three's guilt. 
With his trademark sunglasses and rock star-like coif, Echols is clearly the most visible of the freed Three, having made numerous appearances on talk shows like The View following his release from death row.

It didn't take long for Echols to make his way onto social media, as his Twitter account went live the same month he stepped out of prison. Today, the recent New York transplant makes a living selling the artwork he made while incarcerated, giving speeches and offering New Age faith healing appointments.

As of early Oct. 2014, he had more than 50,000 followers on Twitter. He refers to his most dedicated fans as "chupacabras" -- the namesake of a mythical beast believed to feed on the lifeblood of farm animals.

Not surprisingly, West Memphis Three supporters -- specifically, Echols' most loyal fans -- have been quite adversarial with the online "non-believers."

"They ironically call me closed minded and assume I'm some kind of fundamentalist Christian who think the Three were devil worshipers," Reynolds said. "I don't believe it was an occult killing, but rather a cult killing ... the cult of Damien Echols and his two flunkies, for lack of a better word."

Martin David Hill is a "believer" who runs one of the most prominent West Memphis Three case websites. Having had extensive interaction with "nons" over the years, he said they vary in politeness and education.

"I hold some respect for people who are not informed about the case --why should you spend months and years poring over thousands of documents?" he said.

However, Hill said he has little respect for those sans knowledge of the case, who he believes virulently parade about their uninformed opinions on the Web.

"They will post an inflammatory unsupported statement and expect others to provide evidence to contradict it, and, in true internet fashion, some take the troll-bait and respond to the statements," he said.

"They make it personal and try to tear me down a notch pointing out some supposed incorrect information on my website.The germ of this is fine. Maybe they could find an error or misrepresentation ... instead they come up with something that is their own error."

Many "nons," Hill said, are satisfied providing the same "non-evidence" over and over.

“How do I feel about those who believe Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley are guilty?" he said. "My first reaction is that regardless of the obsolesces of a cause, someone will continue to fight for it. Some still believe the sun circles the earth.”

…And Justice For All?

Both Sinclair and Reynolds feel that some West Memphis Three "believers" are guilty of turning a blind eye to key evidence against Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley.

"The supporters have spent a whole lot of time and a whole lot money trying to undermine these admissions and confessions," Sinclair said. "Unless you believe there is some huge, massive conspiracy involving the public officials in the State of Arkansas to convict these people ... there is certainly more than circumstantial evidence that they were involved in the crime.”

Citing "alternative suspects" such as Terry Hobbs, John Byers and even a mysterious, blood-drenched man who reportedly stumbled into an area Bojangles restaurant the night of the crime, Sinclair said WM3 loyalists are constantly attempting to shift blame to other individuals.

"They first pointed the accusatory finger at John Byers in the probably murder, and when that didn’t pan out, they turned around and pointed the accusatory finger at Terry Hobbs," he said. "All the while, they’ve been going from one suspect to another."

Nor does he find recent accusations that the three boys may have been killed by a quartet of men convincing.

“If anybody can believe that scenario took place, that four beer guzzling rednecks in a pick-up truck are suddenly going to kill three 8-year-old boys, in the kind of manner that they killed them," he said, "it’s so bizarre and absurd that it stretches any realistic kind of assessment of the situation.”

Reynolds said that many supporters are swayed by emotions as opposed to logic. "[They] cling to their innocence as blindly as some fundamentally religious people cling to their holy books," he said.

Neither believe print and broadcast journalists handled the case appropriately, pre-trial or post-release.

"I think the media does not do it’s due diligence when it comes to reporting the facts of their release -- they often just accept what someone has told them," Reynolds said.

Sinclair even believes some members of the media themselves may not have bought into the Three's innocence, but continued following the news for the sake of sensationalism.

"I believe there were a lot of good reporters who were stuck behind it and I think there were a lot of them who willingly accepted being snowed because it was a good story," he said.

“Once the media gets their teeth into a case, they’re not going to come back and say ‘we were wrong’ … they’re going to keep pursuing the issue, they’re going to keep giving coverage to it."

As a supporter of the Three, Hill said he has “moved on” since the men were released from prison in 2011.

If conclusive evidence turned up demonstrating the guilt of the WM3, he said he would have no qualms accepting it. “It would solve a longstanding question in my mind -- whodunnit?” he said.

However, Hill thinks the combined evidence against the Three is nowhere near enough to finger them as the culprits in the two-decades-old slayings.

“All in all, I've found the evidence against the three of them combined to be virtually nothing, and of the individuals to be below that of dozens of other suspects in the case," he said. "Over the years, I’ve been surprised at how little evidence there is, how much of it disappears with even the most cursory analysis."

Pending Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley come forward and publicly admit guilt, neither Reynolds or Sinclair believe the murders of Branch, Byers or Moore will ever be truly solved.

"There is no real, serious evidence that links anyone else to these crimes," Sinclair said. "This case is closed."

Reynolds said the Three may "escape justice" now, but he believes they will eventually answer for their crimes in an entirely different kind of courtroom.

"Unfortunately justice will never happen in this world," he said. "It will have to wait until the trio face their ultimate judgment."


Uncommon Journalism, 2014.

31 comments:

  1. The same resource so many nons cite (Callahan) is run by supporters (two of the three anyway.) Even worse, one of the supporters went from non to supporter because he gathered evidence and docs. So honestly.....I just do not put stock in what the nons say.

    Also, there are some links explaining just why the confessions Miskelley made are not even remotely credible
    http://www.statementanalysis.com/WM3/jesse-misskelley-confession/
    http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessiePostConvictionStatement.htm
    http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieJailStatement.htm
    http://www.dpdlaw.com/jessieClarificationStatement.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New trials were not set to begin in December, 2011. Hearings on the killers' requests for new trials at which the three killers bore the burden of proof were set to begin in December, 2011. If the killers failed to meet their burden, their requests for new trials would have been denied and they would have remained in prison. That is why their attorneys came up with the Alford plea to get them out of prison and maintain an appearance of innocence when they could not prove innocence in the courts.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Their lawyers didn't come up with the Alford Plea, it was the result of offers put to them by the prosecution when the prosecution realised they would probably not win the trial (given the new evidence).

      Delete
  2. Great job James. This has to be the most even handed article I've read about the WM3.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I myself was convinced after watching the "Paradise Lost" documentaries that they were innocent. It seemed almost paradoxical(in light of the evidence, or lack thereof) that the prosecution was so ardently adhering to their position of guilt. That is what, in essence, compelled me to investigate this case further. To anyone that believes the WM3 are innocent: I implore you to "look and see" for yourself. The WM3 are GUILTY!! GUILTY!! GUILTY!! There's no way around it!! It's very interesting that the producers of the "Paradise Lost" documentaries knowingly omitted certain key pieces of evidence, and chose to obfuscate and abrogate the real truth. This was not a case of a "Witch Hunt", or whatever term anyone chooses to describe the claim that these guys were singled out because of their dress code and public demeanor. Had they been "Collegiate Frat Boy" types, the results would have been the same. Damien Echols(particularly) was the focus of law enforcement due to his history of mental disorders and recalcitrance. There is no excuse for their actions!! And in all fairness, they all deserve to be in jail for the rest of their lives!! Fortunately, for them, society has chosen to engage in obliquity rather than truth and justice. As far as their "Hollywood Supporters" Sadly, I believe some of them probably know, and don't care that they're guilty. The WM3 (Echols particularly) have become a novelty. Echols has become a "Cult of Personality" I think enough time has passed, and Echols has become so good at prevarication, that he himself believes his lies. It's a sad stats of affairs when child molester/murderers can achieve the level of fame and notoriety these guys have. In the very end: Divine justice and punishment turns no one down!!! We all will answer for our transgressions!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely with you, dean miller...dig into the facts a little, look beyond the hype, and you can smell the guilt of these three schmucks. Damien Echols had a fascination and admiration for Aleister Crowley, a renowned pedophile, and Echols' mutilation of those three boys was some sort of perverted tribute to his idol. Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were just his flunkie followers. Watch the courtroom scene in Paradise Lost where Echols is questioned about why the name Aleister Crowley is found on the cover of his school notebook....and then watch him lie.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Echols, Knox and Avery have something in common. Cases which upon closer look had strong evidence as well as police errors.

      Delete
    4. Revelyn, just pray you are never judged so harshly by appearance and circumstantial evidence. Pretty scary mindset you're carrying around there.

      Delete
    5. Ozzy Osbourne dedicated a song (Mr Crowley) to Aleister Crowley on his 1980 album, Blizzard Of Oz, due to his own fascination with the man after reading one Crowley's books. Is this evidence he is also a sociopath ready to perform ritualistic killings? Ozzy also mutilated animals by decapitating several living doves and a bat with his teeth, so he must be evil, by your standards. Damien may be guilty of the West Memphis murders, but I certainly hope people's judgment is based on empirical evidence, eyewitness accounts, and factual inconsistencies in Damien's own recounting of events, not the "burn the witch" mentality that you are displaying here.

      Delete
    6. Yes. Someone who murders animals is EVIL. NOW STFU.

      Delete
    7. Yes. Someone who murders animals is EVIL. NOW STFU.

      Delete
    8. Dean, I could have written your comment myself. I believe these three to be as guilty as hell. I could not place my hand on the Bible and swear it, but my belief is just shy of precluding my doing so. We all have our sins, but what the WM3 did was evil. And Justice will ultimately and perfectly be served.

      Delete
    9. Dean, I could have written your comment myself. I believe these three to be as guilty as hell. I could not place my hand on the Bible and swear it, but my belief is just shy of precluding my doing so. We all have our sins, but what the WM3 did was evil. And Justice will ultimately and perfectly be served.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. yea these dudes are guilty as hell. travesty they got out.

      Delete
  4. Revelyn..the triple homicide had only one mutilation,the cause of death for 2was drowning and multiple injuries the 3rd child cause of death multiple injuries and bled out....i tell you this as facts are important as everyone states.I personally believe they are guilty.However i get frustrated when facts aren't correctly offered.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Revelyn..the triple homicide had only one mutilation,the cause of death for 2was drowning and multiple injuries the 3rd child cause of death multiple injuries and bled out....i tell you this as facts are important as everyone states.I personally believe they are guilty.However i get frustrated when facts aren't correctly offered.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Revelyn..the triple homicide had only one mutilation,the cause of death for 2was drowning and multiple injuries the 3rd child cause of death multiple injuries and bled out....i tell you this as facts are important as everyone states.I personally believe they are guilty.However i get frustrated when facts aren't correctly offered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I actually saw Paradise Lost at a movie theater a long time ago. I don't think initially it was a HBO film.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It takes three people, not to mention each one having distinct shoe lace ties, to capture three children and kill them. If it was one killer, or even two, one would probably have gotten away. Their Alibis? Echols didn't talk to Holly like he stated, and Baldwin changed his story at least two times as to where he was. Also, Misskelley not only confessed to capturing Michael Moore after his attempted run, but he confessed to tossing a bottle of beer in a precise spot police later discovered near the crime scene. Hollywood stars hyped their innocence with little information on the case and everyone boarded the WM3 FREE train! Now that they are out and legally guilty I think at least Echols should be required by law to wear a anklet track or be under house arrest!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a bottle of whiskey, not beer.

      Delete
  9. I am personally agnostic about the WM3's guilt, however, obviously somebody is responsible and to this day of all those who have been accused over the years the strongest case is the one against the WM3.

    I don't even think the intent of the original Paradise Lost documentary was to make the case for innocence of the WM3; I certainly didn't come away from it with the impression that the WM3 had been railroaded. I suspect the support for the WM3, particularly amongst high profile celebs, probably surprised the filmmakers and they on it became 'believers' after they saw how popular and lucrative the railroaded innocents narrative would be.

    The original documentary definitely makes it clear that there were problems with the prosecution's case. The town of West Memphis certainly does not come off well, including the families of the murdered boys and the accused.

    The film definitely floats the idea that Damien was targeted because he was 'weird' and wore black and listened to heavy metal (though listening to heavy metal in the early 90s in the south is nowhere near as unusual or weird as the film suggests), though my initial impression of the doc was not that this was taken as a serious explanation for why Damien was accused by the filmmakers so much as that it just made the film's overall narrative more interesting (e.g. "could the6 be innocent?" etc).

    People forget just how bad Damien comes across in the original documentary, smugly grooming his hair, his fumbling on the witness stand, Jason Baldwin telling his own lawyer be thought Damien probably did it, etc.

    The most hypocritical thing about the believers in my opinion is how quick they are to turn around and accuse others of being guilty using 'evidence' that is far more flimsy than that used to convict the WM3.

    I don't know who killed the boys, ava there isn't enough evidence to indict, much less convict, anyone. But based on what we do know, the WM3 still remain the most plausible suspects.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely! I love that you point out the obvious: WM3 supporters are quick to point the finger at others, based on nothing.

      Delete
  10. Whether you believe the three guilty or innocent, there is no possible way a rational person could read the transcripts of Misskelley's trial and disagree with the rendered verdict. The defense were absolutely eviscerated in the courtroom. The primary "expert" witnesses were shown not only to be unreliable - but outright fraudulent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i would really like to read that transcript, is it online somewhere, in it's entirety?

      i, like so many, saw the 1st documentary back when it 1st came out. and i swallowed it pretty much like everyone did, and believed the 3 were railroaded. but i recently watched it again and it seemed to me that there were certain "blank spots" in the defense that were not being addressed. i am neither a believer nor a non, now, but i am questioning things i hadn't noticed before.

      Delete
  11. No one knows absolutely 100 percent sure who killed them 3 boys but God. But I really wish that the real true killer or killers would get caught. But I guess in the end god will get justice in judgement day. God bless them 3 boy's and will see you in heaven. So sad I cried for them 3 eight year old boy's. God bless all and good Knight...

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are right. And it is for God alone to judge and render justice. He wishes for all to repent. I pray the killers do. As for the boys, their troubles are over, thank God. The memory of their suffering erased. Christ wraps them firmly in His warm embrace.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Every person who tries to make a case that the WM3 are guilty engages in speaking of the time of person Damien is over and over, like that matters. "Damien was in and out of mental hospitals. He likes occultist stuff. He said he killed the kids at a softball game." None of this means dink. When I was a teenager I would have said I killed the kids too. It's called being an attention-seeking troubled kid. Ultimately, it's the reason Damien was convicted. He said he killed the kids to shock people, for shits and giggles. Yuppie morons can't grasp this sort of conduct because they never were that kind of kid. They also can't grasp why some kids who are frequently in trouble with adults would make up alibis. They frankly, didn't have any faith that people would believe them. When you are troubled kid, you think adults are morons, because they keep proving they are. You don't trust authority figures as far as you can throw them. So you lie. And lie. And lie. Even when it's about a situation where you are accused of something you didn't do.

    The only hard evidence that ties the WM3 to the crime is blue candle wax on one of the victims shoes. THAT IS IT. Damien had a blue candle in his room. If you find this at all compelling evidence, it's no surprise you jabronis believe Jesus walked on water.

    ReplyDelete