Why the WM3 are Guilty - Part 3

Jason Baldwin

Jason Baldwin has been described as a shy and mild-mannered young man by Paul Ford, Jason's former defense attorney. Friends and family described him the same way with the addition of being artistic. They said he made good grades and looked after his family. Combine his personality with his slender physical appearance and there's no possible way a kid like that could be a murderer, right?

If history taught us anything, it is that we should never judge a book by its cover. There's a Japanese parable about people having three faces. The first face, you show to the world. The second face, you show to your family and friends. The third face, you never show to anyone and It is the truest reflection of who you are. 

In this case, anyone who thought they knew Jason were wrong. Under the influence of an older friend's disturbing fantasy, Jason would prove to be very capable of murder.

Take Jeffery Dahmer for instance. Many, including a prom date named Bridget Geiger, considered Dahmer to be a shy and polite person. Dahmer came from a broken home, had issues with alcohol, and messed around with dead animals, but no one ever considered him violent. If one pointed to that and proclaimed that Dahmer's a troubled kid, then you'd have to do the same with Jason. Jason also came from a broken home, vandalized property, and stole. He also hunted, killed, and skinned snakes. An interesting skill since Christopher Byers testicles were removed as was the skin of his penis.

How about Ted Bundy? He was intelligent and bright. He was very kind to people he both professionally and socially knew. He volunteered at Seattle's suicide hotline center to talk people out of killing themselves. At the end of his shift, he would walk Ann Rule, fellow volunteer, to her car at night. Not only did she believe he was initially innocent or rape and murder, but so did all his co-workers. People talked highly of Bundy, he was well respected in social and political circles.

Take a look at the photo below. Look at the two teenage girls from the left and middle. Do they look like girls who would murder their friend on the right? No? Well, that's exactly what happened. Shelia Eddy and Rachel Shoaf murdered Skyler Neese by stabbing her to death. The motive? They simply didn't want to be friends with her anymore. Some motives defy logic.

Shelia, Rachel, and Skyler

The point of these examples are to prove that just because someone doesn't look or act like they are capable of murder, doesn't mean that they aren't capable. Murderers come in all packages and should be assessed case by case. Just because Jason is mild-mannered and shy, doesn't mean he wasn't capable of a horrific crime.


Proving reasonable doubt, not innocence

Jason is unique out of the "West Memphis Three" because he doesn't incriminate himself like Damien and Jessie. However, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt. You have to consider Jessie's multiple confessions and the things Damien said to friends and what strangers overheard him saying.

Gail Grinnel, Jason's mother, didn't want her son talking to police. When WMPD detectives tried to talk to Jason, along with Damien and Domini on May 9th of 1993, Gail flipped out. She told the detectives that she didn't want them talking to her son. The detectives tried reasoning with her, but Gail refused to be reasonable. The detectives had no choice, but to leave, Gail was well within her rights, but her actions were anything than that of a mother who felt her son was innocent. Why wouldn't she want Jason to answer questions and give his alibi? Why wouldn't she want her son to give whatever information to the police to rule him out as a suspect?

John Fogleman, one of the prosecutors, asked Gail why she was so belligerent to the detectives:

FOGLEMAN: OKAY, CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU GOT SO UPSET THE DAY THE POLICE WERE TALKING TO JASON AND DAMIEN AND DOMINI OUT IN FRONT OF YOUR TRAILER?
 
ANGELA: I JUST GOT, I CAUSE... CAUSE THEY HAD THIS A LOT RUMORS GOING AROUND ABOUT THEM AND IT HAD GOTTEN ME UPSET
 
FOGLEMAN: I SEE, THEN YOU DIDN'T WANT THE POLICE TALKING TO JASON?
 
ANGELA: UM, NO
 
FOGLEMAN: OKAY, CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU DIDN'T JASON?
 
ANGELA: BECAUSE UM, I THOUGHT THAT
 
FOGLEMAN: IT'S OKAY JUST GO AHEAD
 
ANGELA: UM THEY, UM I THOUGHT THAT THEY WAS, THOUGHT THAT DAMIEN WAS GUILTY OR SOMETHING AND DIDN'T WANT UM, JASON RUNNING AROUND WITH HIM
 
FOGLEMAN: YOU DIDN'T WANT JASON RUNNING AROUND WITH DAMIEN?
 
ANGELA:
 
FOGLEMAN: OKAY, OKAY
 
ANGELA: (INAUDIBLE) I KNOW THEIR ALL, THEIR ALL INNOCENT AND
 
FOGLEMAN: DID JASON TELL YOU ANYTHING THAT SCARED YOU?
 
ANGELA: NO
 
FOGLEMAN: ARE YOU SURE?
 
ANGELA: I'M SURE

Gail thought Damien was initially guilty and didn't want her son hanging out with him. She eventually changed her mind about Damien, but Paul Ford obviously felt Damien could be guilty. Paul wanted to isolate Jason from Damien. 

In Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, Ford asked Jason if he were on the jury, would he have found Damien guilty: 

Ford: If you were on that Jury would you have a hard time letting him go??

Jason: Yeah.

Ford: I would too.

So other than Jason's own attorney believing that Damien was guilty, he found Jason's alibis inconsistent. Jason's mother, uncle, brother, and friends gave different accounts of his whereabouts on the evening of May 5th, 1993. The alibis were so unreliable that Paul Ford wisely decided not to use them because they would not hold up in cross-examination. In addition, Ford wasn't comfortable with everything that Damien's counsel did at the time. Damien's attorney was set out to prove his client innocent, but Ford's strategy wasn't to prove Jason's innocence. Instead, he wanted to establish reasonable doubt by poking holes in the State's argument.

Here is a statement made by Ford in his closing arguments:

"That's what they want right there. Guilt by association. Because he's sitting over there with Damien, they want you to convict him. Cause he has a best friend or a good friend, they want you to convict him. Do you share the beliefs of all your friends? Do you do everything all the time with all of your friends? Do some of your friends have beliefs that are different from yours? Do they do things that you don't wanna do or don't think is correct, that's not right? Guilt by association is a horrible thing. But that's what they want in this case. They want you to think he's an accomplice. And giving you that instruction that says, an accomplice -- an accomplice, so they can convict Jason without any evidence, because of the evidence against somebody else. But that instruction says you must find that they aided, agreed to aid, or attempted to aid in order to find that they're an accomplice. And where is that evidence?"

Ford's statement about evidence would be compelling, if it were true. 

It is clear that Damien had influence over Jason. If anything is to be believed in Samuel Dwyer's affidavit, Jason's neighborhood friend, it is his insight into Jason's relationship with Damien. He said Jason bought a black trench coat after meeting Damien and even started to talk like him. It's well documented that Jason followed Damien almost everywhere. Damien was the older of the two and Jason obviously looked up to him. It is logical to conclude that Damien assimilated Jason into this way of thinking over a period of time. Jessie can logically be included to a lesser degree because unlike what others have said, Jessie was friends with both Jason and Damien.


The Infamous Lake Knife

 

The Lake Knife

On November 17th of 1993, a survival knife was discovered in a lake directly behind Jason's trailer. The knife was relevant because the discovered object was consistent with a weapon used to inflict some of the injuries found on the victims' bodies. Despite the extraordinary discovery, WM3 supporters and attorneys gave various theories on how the knife ended up in the lake, completely ignoring the rule of Occam's Razor.  

Damien and Jason's attorneys claimed that the knife was planted by the police and didn't belong to Jason. Later, their theory changed as the defense claimed that the prosecution knew the knife was in the lake because the knife was thrown in the water a year before the murders. Samuel Dwyer claimed that Gail Grinnell threw the knife in the lake because she didn't want Jason to have knives. 

So the WM3 defense team denied Jason was the owner of the "lake knife" and then admitted that he did own it, but that it was thrown in the lake a year before. Why the sudden change? Why didn't Jason admit the knife was his to begin with?

Dennis Dent, Gail's boyfriend at the time, claimed to have seen Jason with a knife that fit the description of the "lake knife". It's important to know that Dennis lived at Gail's for a month or two around the time of the murders. Jason confirmed this at his Rule 37 hearing. 

It's also worth noting that Dennis and Gail got into a serious argument on May 5th of 1993 when Gail came home after work. It could have been an isolated incident, but Gail would later blame her ex-husband, Terry Grinnell, for turning her son in for reward money. An accusation that would prove false since it was Jessie, not Terry, who ratted on Jason. 

The issue of how the knife ended up in the lake would only continued to get more bizarre. Gail, also known as Angela, would give two completely different accounts on a WM3 Facebook group on how the knife ended up in the lake.

So Gail claimed that Jason threw the knife into the lake. An interesting statement since it was claimed that the knife was previously believed to be planted evidence and then thrown in the lake by Gail a year before the murders.

Gail would go on to make another claim:

 
So Gail went back to the theory that Jason was framed by the police because she turned down a date by Officer Murray. Yeah, that sounds logical. Murray was so upset that Gail didn't accept his advances that he framed her son of murder. The idea is so preposterous that it belongs in an Oliver Stone movie.  

The thing about the internet is that everything you post can come back to haunt you. It is inconceivable to make two entirely different stories and claim that you can't make it any clearer or plainer. Was the knife Jason's or was it not? Was it thrown in the lake by Gail or Jason? Was it thrown in the lake before or after the murders? Was it planted by scorned police officer or was it not?  I can't make these questions any clearer or plainer. WHICH IS IT, GAIL?

The story of when and how the knife ended up in the lake once again differs from Gail and Samuel's statements. Matt Baldwin, Jason's younger brother placed the knife in the lake after the murders. In addition to the survival knife found in the lake, Jason had his younger brother trade additional weapons to other friends because police suspected him of the Robin Hood Hills murders.  


In an online chat, Matt gave another statement of how the survival knife ended up in the lake. He placed the knife in the lake after the murders because police suspected Jason.

Jennifer Bearden claimed that Damien told her that he was out with Jason on the evening of May 5th of 1993 and that Jason's mother drove them somewhere. Damien and Jason's whereabouts were unaccounted for between the times of 5:30pm and 9:20pm. Gail worked that evening from 3:00pm to 11:00pm, making it impossible that Jason's mother drove them anywhere. Damien placed himself with Jason, alleged Gail drove them somewhere, but wouldn't specify where "somewhere" was. The best explanation given by Damien was that he and Jason were walking around. Very vague and different from the other accounts Damien and Jason had made. The only relevant fact is that Damien, Jason, and Jessie were unaccounted for between 5:30pm and 9:20pm.

Of course, the most damning piece of evidence is Jessie Miskelley's multiple confessions.  Jessie placed the knife in Jason's hand. He confessed that it was Jason, not Damien, who cut off Christopher Byers' testicles and removed the skin of the penis. We know Jason is capable because he has experience with skinning snakes. The type of knife in Jessie's account was a lock blade, but since he was drunk on whiskey, he could have remembered it wrong. Keep in mind, Jessie's confessions couldn't be used in the Baldwin/Echols trial, but hindsight still reveals it as a whole. That shouldn't be discounted now or ever.

Put it all together and the circumstantial evidence proves that Jason Baldwin was involved in the murders of Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore. 

 On March 19, 1994 Jason Baldwin was found guilty on three counts of murder. The court sentenced Baldwin to life in prison. After many years in prison, Jason, along with Damien and Jessie, accepted the Alford plea. A guilty conviction in where they can maintain innocence and go free.


Michael Carson: Liar or Victim of Circumstance?

Michael Carson

Some, especially those who have long researched the case, might be wondering why I have omitted Michael Carson's testimony as proof. I have had debates with "Nons" over the issue and we tend to disagree on he validity of his testimony. 

Nons claim that Carson had nothing to gain by testifying against Jason. They affirm that he even stood by his testimony years after the fact. That's true, but just because there isn't a clear motive to lie, doesn't mean he didn't have other motives. In the documentary called West of Memphis, Carson said he was on LSD and had difficultly believing what was real and what wasn't. He apologized to Jason. Did Carson recant? The line is fuzzy there, but many people made absurd claims about the West Memphis Three and whether they were true or not, they weren't very convincing. 

Could money have convinced Michael Carson to make a statement in a film that wasn't true? Possibly, but shouldn't that be all the more reason not to rely on anything he said?  What's to say that his motive wasn't to be involved in a highly publicized case with cameras all around, both in and out of the court room. Perhaps in Carson's mind, he would be considered a hero for making the testimony that would put Damien and Jason behind bars. It's all speculative, but Carson's testimony never convinced me and I believe the WM3 are guilty as charged without his testimony.

Carson's polygraph is pointed at by Nons as evidence that he told the truth about Jason. Really? By that logic, Curtis Gott and Christian Sisk must have told the truth when they claimed they overheard Terry Hobbs confess to murder to his brother Mike Hobbs because they both passed a polygraph test. Polygraph tests are unreliable. Innocent people fail them and guilty people pass them. No one should put any serious stock in them since they are inadmissible in court.

Instead, the validity of Michael Carson's statement should be considered over anything else. Did he share information that only the police knew at the time? No. Is is logical to believe that Jason would tell another inmate about the crimes before his trial started? No. Jason stood by his innocence the entire time even under police questioning so how is it that he's going to tell a kid he hardly knew? It's possible Jason did tell Carson, but there's enough doubt to question Carson's testimony.

Despite Michael Carson, there was enough reliable testimony and circumstantial evidence to put the West Memphis Three behind bars. I just wouldn't use people like Vickie Hutcheson or Michael Carson as a prime examples of that evidence. 

Why the WM3 are Guilty - Part 2

Damien Echols

Damien Echols - Mug Shot

It is popularly believed that Damien Echols was one of the three falsely convicted of murder because he dressed in black, listened to heavy metal music, and read Stephen King novels. It is widely accepted that "satanic panic" was the primary reason why Damien was found guilty. This belief is heavily enforced by the Paradise Lost series, Mara Leveritt's books, and a cast of  famous people sympathetic to the WM3 cause. They believe that Damien was just a misunderstood bright kid in an ignorant southern Christian town.

However, if we dig deeper, we see that Damien wasn't just a misunderstood kid who had different eccentric tastes. In fact, we see a violent and disturbed kid with mental problems and homicidal tendencies.

Jerry Driver, Damien's juvenile probation officer, was the first to suggest a link between Damien and the murders.

Jerry first met Damien on May 29th of 1992, nearly a year before the murders. Damien was arrested for burglary and sexual misconduct after trying to run away with a girl named Deanna Holcomb, his girlfriend at the time. During the arrest, Damien threatened to kill the officer, who made the arrest and Deanna's father. Damien told caseworkers that he made a suicide pact with Deanna if they couldn't be together.

Jerry, along with Detective John Murray, questioned Damien. Damien denied being a Satanist, but did admit he was involved in the occult. He described himself as a grey witch, a witch that is in the middle of white and black witchcraft. Basically, he saw himself neutral between good and evil. Damien explained to Jerry that he did have a group that would meet and that his main participant was his best friend Jason Baldwin. He also boasted that Jason would never give him up, which was confirmed in Damien's autobiography entitled Life After Death. Jason knew of Damien and Deanna's plan to run away together and was with them part of that day. Jason was even Damien's errand boy. After they broke into a vacant trailer, Damien gave Jason money to buy drinks and snacks.

Damien claimed to be aware of occult activities in the area and stated that he may or may not have been a part of them. Damien alleged that one particular group was finished with the animal sacrifice stage of their rituals and that the next logical step would be to sacrifice a human. 

After a lengthy discussion about the topic, Jerry made it his mission to keep a close eye on Damien Echols.  

It is important to understand Damien's frame of mind before, during, and after the murders. In his own words, Damien described himself as a schizophrenic sociopath suffering from alcohol and drug abuse and with homicidal tendencies and suicidal thoughts. 


Damien's blood lust

Damien had a taste for human blood that is extensively documented in a 500 page document called Exhibit 500. The extensive documents are a long list of Damien's mental health records that were presented by his lawyers to convince the jury not to give their client the death penalty by persuading them that he was mentally ill. 

While at Charter Hospital of Little Rock back in June of 1992, Damien would suck blood off of peers who had scratched themselves. In September of the same year, Damien was in the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center. While there, another juvenile cut his wrists. Damien grabbed the kid by one of his wrists and sucked the blood from the open wound. He then smeared the blood on his face and proclaimed he was a devil worshiping vampire. He was immediately placed in isolation and suicide watch.

Damien stated to one social worker that he believed in vampires and that he worshiped the devil. He told another counselor that drinking blood gave him power and made him feel like a god.

In addition to Jessie's many confessions, others have witnessed Damien's taste for blood. Tiffany Allen witnessed a fight between Jason Baldwin and another boy named John Perschka. After the fight, Jason bled and Damien dipped his finger in Jason's blood and stuck it in his mouth. 

Damien made it clear during an interview that he doesn't drink blood, but licks it. An irrelevant statement because whether he's drinking, sucking, or licking -- he's consuming human blood.


Damien's violent behavior

Damien's violent threats have also been well documented. In addition to threatening Deanna's father and the arresting police officer, Damien threatened to kill former friend Shane Divilbiss, the person Deanna dated after her split with Damien. In school, Damien attacked Shane and tried to gouge out his eye. In Life After Death, Damien denied this act, claiming his finger accidentally grabbed on to Shane's eye, but his book contradicts his statements in his medical records.

Shane would have some interesting insight on Damien. He claimed that Damien was an imposing person and that his friends feared him. He stated that if you disagreed with Damien, his glance could quickly silence someone due to intimidation. 

One certain aspect of Shane's interview with Detective Sargent Mike Allan revealed more about Damien and his link to the occult:

Allen: Deanna Holcomb has she ever told you anything about why she was so afraid of him or anything, I know probably from the newspaper articles and things of that nature that there was supposed so like, dog, cats sacrifices different things of that nature rumor of thing of that nature, do you know anything that Deanna ever mention anything about some things that Damien would do that made her scared of him or
 
Shane: She didn't tell me any thing in detail she did tell me that he scared her that she thought he was crazy she told me that several times whenever the subject came up about him which I generally tried to avoid there because, then one thing I wanted to do was get her away from him. She didn't tell me anything about sacrifices or anything but she did tell me that at one time they had sexual intercourse in a room full of people watching them, she told me of you know that is the main thing she told me about like a circle of people were watching them, and that is with candles around and everything like that which you know kind of reminded me of you know unusual practice.
 
Allen: Did she ever talk about being tied up or anything?
 
Shane: She never told me anything about that
 
Allen: Is there anything you could add that, at this point that might be beneficial in this investigation as far as any information that something that you may have heard from someone else something that hadn't been brought up so far that might assist us in kind of way?
 
Shane: Nothing but the fact that I know Damien is exactly highly intelligence he knows a lot about things he knows how to work with a person's mind, he can manipulate person mind to where what he believes in he finds someone that can't control that he can't influence he hate them.


Shane's description of Damien's high intelligence and intimidation would be verified in his clinical assessment and personality inventory report. 

Damien also threatened to kill his mother and father. After leaving Charter Hospital of Little Rock in 1992, his parents moved him to Oregon because Pam, Damien's mother, believed he was into strange activities and didn't like the quality of friends he had in Arkansas. 

In September of 1992, Damien's parents called the police. They no longer felt safe around their unstable son. Damien made statements that he was going to kill himself and others. He threatened to commit suicide in various ways. Damien also threatened to cut his mother's throat and made verbal threats to kill his father.

Damien's threats continued to mount up after the murders. According to Jennifer Ball, she was in her kitchen on the phone when all of a sudden, Damien appeared outside her window, telling her she was doing to die. This happened in March of 1993 and an incident report was filed.

Soon after Damien threatened Jennifer's life, he went to Amanda Lancaster's house, eying her home menacingly. According to Amanda, she stated that Heather Cliett, Jason Baldwin's girlfriend, told her that Damien had been asking about her. He asked Heather about Amanda's phone number and address. At a local skating rink, Damien would follow Amanda and Jennifer around, intimidating them and claimed they were the next two to die. 

The threat was credible. At a softball field, five different girls heard Damien, along with Jason, admitting he murdered Stevie, Christopher, and Michael. He went on to say that he planned on killing two more people before turning himself in. He claimed he already had one of them picked out. The five girls who testified were Jodi Medford, Jessica Medford, Jackee Medford, and Katie LaFoy. Donna Medford, the mother of Jodi, Jessica, and Jackee also made a statement regarding Damien's softball field confession. 

In trial, Damien admitted being at the soft ball field, but denied making those remarks. Years later in a prison interview, he admitted that he probably did say it, but that it was a joke.  

Heather Cliett made a statement that Damien told her that he stuck a stick in a dog's eye, jumped on it, and burned it. An interesting statement because Amanda would speak of Damien wearing dog intestines around his neck. Joe Bartoush, Jason's cousin, witnessed the torture and killing of the dog. 

A dog skull was found in Damien's house on May 19th, 1992, after running away with Deanna. Damien claimed in trial that he and his step-father found it on the side of the road, but Damien always seems to have an explanation for everything. Admitting and denying things, going back and forth with all the claims about him.


Damien's take on the murders and false alibis

Detective Bryan Ridge and Shane Griffin visited Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Domini Teer at the front of Jason's house. They asked Damien his thoughts on the murders.

Damien believed whoever committed the crime was sick and did it as a thrill kill. He said that the penis was a symbol of power and that the number three was sacred in the Wiccan religion. He said the murdered boys probably died of mutilation and drowning. He assumed one was cut up worse then the others and that the purpose of the murder was to scare someone. 

Damien claimed only one person committed the murders because if there were more, someone would eventually confess When asked how the person felt after committing the murders, Damien answered that the person probably felt good because they had the power to do what they did by taking life. When asked why he thought the boys were so young, Damien answered that the younger the victim, the more innocent they are and that it gave the murderer more power. 

Damien believed that the killer knew that the kids went into the woods and that maybe the murderer asked them to come into the woods. He said the boys were not big or smart and would be easy to control. He said the killer would not be concerned with the screams due to it being in the woods and close to the expressway and that the killer wanted to hear the children scream. 

Damien believed that the killer was local and didn't care if he or she was caught because he thought it was funny. 

When asked what items the cops should be looking for at the crime scene, Damien answered candles, crystals, and a knife. 

Damien's take on the murders was eerily similar to what happened at the crime scene. Especially the part of one child being mutilated worse than the others and the drownings. Damien would be questioned at his trial by Prosecutor Brent Davis. When Davis asked where Damien heard about the details, he claimed he read about them in the Commercial Appeal. Problem is, that information was never in the Commercial Appeal. Davis accused Damien of changing his explanations to conveniently fit the circumstances and Damien agreed. Damien was constantly changing his story. 

Here's an example of Damien admitting this when cross-examined by Davis:

Q. Your mother testified that when you were down at the police station, one of the things she told you was, we've got some alibis, correct?
 
A. Yes.
 
Q. She's testified that the same day the police talked to you, or maybe it was your sister, that that is when you first started discussing among the family about the details of those alibis, correct?
 
A. Yes, sir.
 
Q. When the police talk with you on the tenth, at that point in time you tell them from 3:00 to 5:00 is when you think you were at the Sanders', is that right?
 
A. I probably told him that then.
 
Q. That was about five days after the boys had turned up missing that you told him it was around 3:00 to 5:00?
 
A. I probably told him that if it's in the report.
 
Q. When your mom tells him something, it is about five to six or five to six-thirty, okay?
 
A. (NODS HEAD)
 
Q. As time moves on and the time period that is in question becomes later that evening, the visit to the Sanders' becomes later that evening, correct?
 
A. Yes, sir.
 
Q. So the story kind of changes to fit the facts we need to cover, right?
 
A. Yes, sir.

Damien claimed that he was on the phone with several girls that night. He claimed to be on the phone with Domini Teer, Heather Cliett, Holly George, and Jennifer Bearden. Although he did talk to these girls that night, the time frame doesn't create a compelling alibi.

Damien claimed he talked to Holly that evening. Not true, he talked to her in the after noon around 3:00pm or 4:00pm.

Damien claimed he talked to Heather, but it wasn't until 10:30pm. He told her that he was walking around with Jason.

Damien parted ways with Domini around 5:00 or 5:30pm. The next time she spoke with him was around 10:00pm.

Damien spoke with Jennifer at about 9:20pm. Before, Jennifer called Jason and Damien before 5:30pm and she stated that Damien told her that he and Jason were going somewhere. She called Damien's house at 8:00pm and was told that he wasn't home. Later, Damien changed his story and claimed he gave his mother instructions to tell her he wasn't home because Domini was over. Based on Domini's accounts of where she was that night, she wasn't with Damien during that time frame. So who's lying? Damien or Domini? Domini was firmly behind Damien throughout the investigation and trial, so there's nothing for her to gain by lying in her statement. Daine Teer, Domini's mother, would also confirm she arrived home at around 7:00pm.

So from 5:30pm to 9:20pm, Damien implicated himself, along with Jason, by telling others he walked around with his best friend that night. This contradicts his statement that he was on the phone with them during the time frame of the murders. 

In addition to Damien's lies, Pam Hutchison, his mother, claimed he was with the family during the time frame of the murders. She claimed that they all had supper and then went to friend's house. After that, they returned home and Damien was there the entire night, talking on the phone from 7:30pm to 11:00pm. Pam claimed one of the people he spoke to that night was Jason. However, Damien also claimed he was with Domini and wouldn't take Jennifer's phone call because of it. Domini certainly doesn't remember that so what's the truth?

It is clear that Damien and Pam are not being truthful because all four girls Damien claimed to have talked to that night didn't occur around the times he claimed. Who's lying? The four girls or Damien and Pam? It isn't reasonable to believe the girls lied. Domini was Damien's girlfriend and the mother of his child. Heather was Jason's girlfriend so what would be her motive? Jennifer was very close with Damien. Holly was friends with Damien and Domini. Again, what's the truth? They can't all be true.


  
Child Sacrifice and Aleister Crowley

Jerry Driver reported that Damien had planned to have a baby with Deanna Holcomb and sacrifice it. Damien denied the accusation, but again, Damien would deny a lot of things that he would later admit to be true. 

 

Damien's art of child sacrifice

Damien denied being into black witchcraft and claimed to be a white witch but Deanna claimed her ex-boyfriend lied about being a white witch. She stated that he was very much into black witchcraft. 

Deanna's most disturbing statement was this: 

I ran away with Damien. I went to a hospital in Memphis and he went to one in Little Rock. I found out that he planned to kill our first born if it was a girl. Damien would not do it he is a coward and would have tried to get me to do it. That’s when I knew he was nuts and I had nothing else to do with him. I meet Damien at school. I read some of his poems and felt sorry for him.

Deanna saw Damien as too much of a coward to commit murder, but apparently, his intent of having others do it was certainly there. Little did she know, he was fully capable of being a participant.

 
Chris Littrell, a Wiccan and a friend of Damien's, stated that Damien had planned to sacrifice the baby of another girlfriend, Domini Teer, but decided against it due to getting a bigger government check due to his social security disability. 

With the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore and the talk of sacrifice, it is important we address one of Damien Echols' influences -- Aleister Crowley!

Aleister Crowley, an occultist, practiced magic of sex, drugs, and sacrifice. Crowley was drawn to the occult and was fascinated by blood, torture, and sexual degradation; he liked to fantasize being degraded by a “Scarlet Woman.” He combined these interests in a lifestyle that shocked others and reveled in the attention he drew.

Especially when it came to his statements on Child Sacrifice:


CHAPTER XII

OF THE BLOODY SACRIFICE: AND MATTERS COGNATE

It is necessary for us to consider carefully the problems connected with the bloody sacrifice, for this question is indeed traditionally important in Magick. Nigh all ancient Magick revolves around this matter. In particular all the Osirian religions the rites of the Dying God refer to this. The slaying of Osiris and Adonis; the mutilation of Attis; the cults of Mexico and Peru; the story of Hercules or Melcarth; the legends of Dionysus and of Mithra, are all connected with this one idea. In the Hebrew religion we find the same thing inculcated. The first ethical lesson in the Bible is that the only sacrifice pleasing to the Lord is the sacrifice of blood; 

Abel, who made this, finding favour with the Lord, while Cain, who offered cabbages, was rather naturally considered a cheap sport. The idea recurs again and again. We have the sacrifice of the Passover, following on the story of Abraham’s being commanded to sacrifice his firstborn son, with the idea of the substitution of animal for human life. The annual ceremony of the two goats carries out this in perpetuity. And we see again the domination of this idea in the romance of Esther, where Haman and Mordecai are the two goats or gods; and ultimately in the presentation of the rite of Purim in Palestine, where Jesus and Barabbas happened to be the Goats in that particular year of which we hear so much, without agreement on the date.

This subject must be studied in the “Golden Bough”, where it is most learnedly set forth by Dr. J. G. Frazer.

Enough has now been said to show that the bloody sacrifice has from time immemorial been the most considered part of Magick. {92} The ethics of the thing appear to have concerned no one; nor, to tell the truth, need they do so. As St. Paul says, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission”; and who are we to argue with St. Paul? But, after all that, it is open to any one to have any opinion that he likes upon the subject, or any other subject, thank God! 

At the same time, it is most necessary to study the business, whatever we may be going to do about it; for our ethics themselves will naturally depend upon our theory of the universe. If we were quite certain, for example, that everybody went to heaven when he died, there could be no serious objection to murder or suicide, as it is generally conceded — by those who know neither — that earth is not such a pleasant place as heaven. However, there is a mystery concealed in this theory of the bloody sacrifice which is of great importance to the student, and we therefore make no further apology, We should not have made even this apology for an apology, had it not been for the solicitude of a pious young friend of great austerity of character who insisted that the part of this chapter which now follows — the part which was originally written — might cause us to be misunderstood. This must not be.

 The blood is the life. This simple statement is explained by the Hindus by saying that the blood is the principal vehicle of vital Prana. There is some ground for the belief that there is a definite substance , not isolated as yet, whose presence makes all {93} the difference between live and dead matter. We pass by with deserved contempt the pseudoscientific experiments of American charlatans who claim to have established that weight is lost at the moment of death, and the unsupported statements of alleged clairvoyants that they have seen the soul issuing like a vapour from the mouth of persons “in articulo mortis”; but his experiences as an explorer have convinced the Master Therion that meat loses a notable portion of its nutritive value within a very few minutes after the death of the animal, and that this loss proceeds with everdiminishing rapidity as time goes on. It is further generally conceded that live food, such as oysters, is the most rapidly assimilable and most concentrated form of energy. Laboratory experiments in food-values seem to be almost worthless, for reasons which we cannot here enter into; the general testimony of mankind appears a safer guide.


It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of those savages who tear the heart and liver from an adversary, and devour them while yet warm. In any case it was the theory of {94} the ancient Magicians, that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal, and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly.

The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or the Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot escape. An animal should be selected whose nature accords with that of the ceremony — thus, by sacrificing a female lamb one would not obtain any appreciate quantity of the fierce energy useful to a Magician who was invoking Mars. In such a case a ram would be more suitable. And this ram should be virgin — the whole potential of its original total energy should not have been diminished in any way. For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim. {95} For evocations it would be more convenient to place the blood of the victim in the Triangle — the idea being that the spirit might obtain from the blood this subtle but physical substance which was the quintessence of its life in such a manner as to enable it to take on a visible and tangible shape.
 
Those magicians who object to the use of blood have endeavored to replace it with incense. For such a purpose the incense of Abramelin may be burnt in large quantities. Dittany of Crete is also a valuable medium. Both these incenses are very catholic in their nature, and suitable for almost any materialization. But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best. The truly great Magician will be able to use his own blood, or possibly that of a disciple, and that without sacrificing the physical life irrevocably. An example of this sacrifice is given in Chapter 44 of Liber 333. This Mass may be recommended generally for daily practice.
 
One last word on this subject. There is a Magical operation of maximum importance: the Initiation of a New Aeon. When it becomes necessary to utter a Word, the whole Planet must be bathed in blood. Before man is ready to accept the Law of Thelema, the Great War must be fought. This Bloody Sacrifice is the critical point of the World-{96}Ceremony of the Proclamation of Horus, the Crowned and conquering Child, as Lord of the Aeon.
This whole matter is prophesied in the Book of the Law itself; let the student take note, and enter the ranks of the Host of the Sun.

II There is another sacrifice with regard to which the Adepts have always maintained the most profound secrecy. It is the supreme mystery of practical Magick. Its name is the Formula of the Rosy Cross. In this case the victim is always — in a certain sense — the Magician himself, and the sacrifice must coincide with the utterance of the most sublime and secret name of the God whom he wishes to invoke.
 
Properly performed, it never fails of its effect. But it is difficult for the beginner to do it satisfactorily, because it is a great effort for the mind to remain concentrated upon the purpose of the ceremony. The overcoming of this difficulty lends most powerful aid to the Magician.


It is unwise for him to attempt it until he has received regular initiation in the true Order of the Rosy Cross, {97} and he must have taken the vows with the fullest comprehension and experience of their meaning. It is also extremely desirable that he should have attained an absolute degree of moral emancipation, and that purity of spirit which results from a perfect understanding both of the differences and harmonies of the planes upon the Tree of Life.

For this reason FRATER PERDURABO has never dared to use this formula in a fully ceremonial manner, save once only, on an occasion of tremendous import, when, indeed, it was not He that made the offering, but ONE in Him. For he perceived a grave defect in his moral character which he has been able to overcome on the intellectual plane, but not hitherto upon higher planes. Before the conclusion of writing this book he will have done so.
 
The practical details of the Bloody Sacrifice may be studied in various ethnological manuals, but the general conclusions are summed up in Frazer’s “Golden Bough”, which is strongly recommended to the reader. 

Actual ceremonial details likewise may be left to experiment. The method of killing is practically uniform. The animal should be stabbed to the heart, or its throat severed, in either case by the knife. All other methods of killing are less efficacious; even in the case of Crucifixion death is given by stabbing. One may remark that warm-blooded animals only are used as victims: with two principal exceptions. The first is the serpent, which is only used in a very special Ritual; the second the magical beetles of Liber Legis. (See Part IV.) {98}

One word of warning is perhaps necessary for the beginner. The victim must be in perfect health — or its energy may be as it were poisoned. It must also not be too large: the amount of energy disengaged is almost unimaginably great, and out of all anticipated proportion to the strength of the animal. Consequently, the Magician may easily be overwhelmed and obsessed by the force which he has let loose; it will then probably manifest itself in its lowest and most objectionable form. The most intense spirituality of purpose is absolutely essential to safety. In evocations the danger is not so great, as the Circle forms a protection; but the circle in such a case must be protected, not only by the names of God and the Invocations used at the same time, but by a long habit of successful defence. If you are easily disturbed or alarmed, or if you have not yet overcome the tendency of the mind to wander, it is not advisable for you to perform {99} the “Bloody Sacrifice”. Yet it should not be forgotten that this, and that other art at which we have dared darkly to hint, are the supreme formulae of Practical Magick.

You are also likely to get into trouble over this chapter unless you truly comprehend its meaning. 

Source: “Magick in Theory and Practice” by Aleister Crowley

Crowley apologists claim that Crowley wasn't literally speaking of sacrificing children, but masturbation. Crowley always wrote and spoke in riddles so it's hard to say. However, it was a claim that Damien wouldn't dispute in trial while questioned by prosecutor Brent Davis.  

In trial, Davis asked Damien if he knew about Aleister Crowley. Damien answered that he knew of Crowley, but knew very little about him. Davis told Damien that Crowley believed in human sacrifice in which Damien responded that Crowley also believed he was god. An interesting response since Damien claimed to know very little about Crowley and in one of his own writings, he claimed to be a god himself. Davis asked Damien if he knew that Crowley found children to be the best type of sacrifice. Damien agreed. Brent Davis then  presented him with a piece of paper with Damien's handwriting. On the paper was a translated coded alphabets. On it was his love for Domini, the name of his best friend, the name of his infant son, and Aleister Crowley. 

Davis asked Damien when he translated the coded names. Damien claimed it was before his arrest. Brent asked him if he was sure it wasn't while he was in jail and Damien timidly responded that it might have been at that time. Davis asked Damien if he translated the alphabet codes while he was in jail and Damien meekly responded: "If you say so." Damien would eventually admit that he translated the codes while he was in jail. Damien knew he was caught in a lie after being so arrogant just minutes before.

The names Damien translated all had importance. Domini was his girlfriend, Jason was his best friend, and Seth was his son. To have their names listed along with Crowley's and to claim he had no influence does not add up. Years later, in Life After Death, Damien would admit how influential Crowley was and still is in his life. 

Crowley was heavily into black witchcraft and attempted to summon demons and other spirits. He didn't believe in God or Satan, but that didn't make his beliefs and actions any less disturbing or evil. Damien would go back and forth on the devil worshiping aspect, but he confirmed he was involved in demonology and believed in the power that blood had, especially when consumed. Again, Damien said when he consumed blood, it made him feel like a god. He also claimed to be possessed by a spirit of a woman murdered by her husband. 

On March 19th, 1994, Damien was convicted on three counts of capital murder and sentenced to die by lethal injection. After many years in prison, Damien, along with Jason and Jessie, accepted the Alford plea. A guilty conviction in where they can maintain innocence and go free.



Influencing the world, becoming another Ted Bundy or Charles Manson, and turning into the West Memphis Boogeyman

Damien would create a self fulfilled prophecy. In his progress report, Damien claimed being told that he could be another Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. In the same report, he stated that he wanted to influence the world.

At the end of Paradise Lost: The Childhood Murders at Robin Hood Hills, Damien said that at a young age, he knew people were going to know who he was. He enjoyed his new found fame because he said even after he's dead, people would talk about him forever. He basked at the idea of parents telling their children stories about him as the West Memphis Boogeyman. He relished the idea that children would fearfully look under their beds, thinking he might be under there.  

Damien loved the attention of the trial. He blew kisses at the parents of the murdered children and smirked, sneered, and licked his lips seductively at onlookers and the media. Patrica Liggett, Damien's aunt, recalled a time when he told her that the one thing he wanted more than anything in the world was to become famous.

Damien got his wish. He was covered by the media and a documentary series that highlighted his trial and aftermath to the entire world. He became famous and not only did activists and a groupie wife fall at his feet, but so did celebrities, filmmakers, and musicians who invested their money to set him and his other two friends free. They spent millions of dollars to hire the same forensic experts who got OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony off of murder charges. Damien has a following that could rival the cult status of Charles Manson. The difference? Damien was freed while Manson, who still maintains his innocence, rots in prison.

In August of 2011, Val Price, Damien's original defense attorney, was asked if he thought his former client was innocent. Price squinted his eyes, shook his head, and said that it was hard to say. A very interesting statement coming from a man who defended him back in 1994.

Today, Damien is living the American dream. He's a New York Times bestselling author, he has art gallery shows, and he teaches Hermetic Reiki. Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore don't get to live a dream. Their innocent blood gave Damien the fame and power he always wanted.

Yep, just a misunderstood kid with eccentric tastes, right? What could be a more tragic story?

Click here for Part 3

Why the WM3 are Guilty - Part 1

Before we get into why Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Miskelley were found guilty, it is important to explain why they were found guilty and by what methods.

There are two ways to find someone guilty of a crime:

1. Direct Evidence: Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.
 
Evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes that fact.

Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


2. Circumstantial Evidence: Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.


Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.


The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.


Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.


Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

An example of a successful conviction based on circumstantial evidence is the Scott Peterson trial. No direct evidence links Scott Peterson to his wife Laci and unborn son's death, but a ton of circumstantial evidence does link him to the murders. As a matter of fact, the only piece of forensic evidence identified was a single hair, thought to have been Laci's, found in a pair of pliers from Peterson's boat. 

So when a defendant's attorney claims that there is no forensic evidence linking their client to a crime, it doesn't by rule mean that the client is innocent. In fact, they can still be found guilty by deductive reasoning. 

What is deductive reasoning? 

Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true.

Now that we understand the methods in how Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Miskelley were found guilty, let's go into how it was put together. In addition, I will use other indicators outside the case and trial to further prove the guilt of Echols, Baldwin, and Miskelley.

Jessie Miskelley

On June 3rd of 1993, Jessie was brought to the West Memphis Police Station at 10:00am for questioning. Jessie knew Damien Echols, who was suspected of being involved in murdering the three victims, and the police were questioning anyone who knew him. 

Jessie Miskelley - Mug Shot

According to notes made by Detectives Mike Allen and Bryan Ridge, Jessie stated that he worked as a roofer on the day of the murders. After work, Jessie claimed he went home and stayed home for the night. An interesting statement since he claimed later that he was out of town, wrestling at some event. This was first of many inconsistent alibis made by the suspects.

Jessie heard a rumor that Damien and Robert Burch killed Michael Moore, Steve Branch, and Christopher Byers. He said he didn't know Burch very well, but knew Damien. He introduced Damien to Vicki Hutcheson. He went on to describe Damien's close relationship with Jason Baldwin. He said that they were always together and that Damien also had a pregnant girlfriend named Domini Teer. Jessie also said that he always saw Damien at local skating rink with friends Jason and another kid named Carl Smith.

Jessie attempted to distance himself from Damien by calling him sick and that he drank human blood. He made inconsistent statements about the last time he met or spoke to Damien. In one statement, he claimed it was three weeks and in another, it was two months.

Suspicion started to mount on Jessie. Jessie was asked if he'd take a polygraph test and he agreed.

Mike Allen's Investigative Report 

Bryan Ridge's Investigative Report

After the polygraph test was conducted, Bill Durham told Bryan Ridge and Chief Inspector, Gary Gitchell, that Jessie was "Lying his ass off!"

The detectives pushed harder, knowing Jessie wasn't being truthful with them. They showed Jessie pictures of the three dead children and played a tape-recording of a boy who eerily said: ''Nobody knows what happened but me.'' After that, Jessie broke down and confirmed he was present during the murders and confessed. Jessie was interrogated for two and a half hours before confessing and not twelve hours as claimed by the filmmakers of the Paradise Lost series. 

Jessie was either vague or incorrect about a lot of details in his first confession. He even lied multiple times about the timing of the murders. Essentially, he attempted to minimize his role. One piece he got right however was chasing down Michael Moore, who was tying to escape, and bringing him back to the scene of the crime. A statement that would be relevant since Moore was discovered farther away from Byers and Branch. Jessie's reason for lying about particular details were made known to Deputy Jon Moody and James Lindsey after Jessie was convicted.

According to Jon Moody in a letter to Chief Inspector Gary Gitchell:

On the afternoon of Feb. 4th 1994, Deputy James Lindsey and myself were transporting Jessie Miskelley to the Arkansas Department of Corrections at Pine Bluff. Jessie was asked if there was anything he wanted to say and after being assured we could not use anything he said against him in court, he chose to talk.

Jessie advised he had received a call from Jason Baldwin asking him if he wanted to go to West Memphis to "get some girls." Jessie, Damion, and Jason met on a local road on May 5th (sometime that evening). Jessie claimed that he had been drinking Evelyn Williams whiskey that Mrs. Hutchson had bought him and Jason and Damion were drinking beer. It was also stated that they had smoked two marijuana joints that afternoon. Jessie said that he had known Jason Baldwin since the 6th Grade and did not know Damion that well but that Damion would drink human blood remembering a time when Jason was bleeding and Damion took some of the blood with his finger and licked it off. Jessie stated that Officer Callahan had lied in Court about not seeing him on May 5th, Jessie claims they had a short conversation. After all meeting on the road, the three boys walked to the woods and were sitting in the water with Jason and Damion "going under," Jessie said he could not go under because of his ear problem.

The three young boys were seen from a distance when Damion told Jessie and Jason to hide. Jessie said they were hiding behind bushes when Damion grabbed Michael Moore. The two other young boys started hitting Damion trying to help their friend and that is when Jessie and Jason jumped out and helped Damion "beat them." Jessie advised he helped hold them and beat them but had no part in raping or killing them.

Jessie advised two of the boys were raped from behind before and after they were tied up and that Damion and Jason were taking turns with the two boys. Jessie said the boys were still alive at this time.

Jessie said the boys were kept quiet by putting hands over their mouths and that Jason and Damion had used "shirts" and that times their face was pushed down into the ground.

Jessie was asked how the boys were kept under control while being raped and not tied yet and he stated "They were like puppies, when you whoop a puppy and tell it to stay, it will." Jessie did say he had to catch Michael Moore but did not say at what point.

Jessie claims that the third boy was never raped but that he may have been the one that Damion took his penis and put it in his mouth (the young boys penis). Jessie said at one point Damion and Jason had one of the boys in a headlock with one he believed had his penis in the boys mouth while the other one had him from behind. Jessie said he did not mention the "ears" to the police, only a headlock. Jessie also mentioned that "sticks" had been used to beat the boys.

At one point, Jessie said that Jason had a "bucktype locking knife" and "cut it all off and threw it in the weeds" saying the boy was alive and tied at this point and that he was surprised blood did not get on him because blood went everywhere and he was about a "car length" away. Jessie said "they" threw him into the water and "he was still squirming around in the water" at which point he left. Jessie said he does not know what happened to the knife. Jessie said he believed the other two boys were not conscious when he left but were not in the water.

Jessie also stated that Jason called him "later" and asked him why he left and he told them he could not watch it any longer. He claims the only other contact with Jason and Damion were a couple of times at the skating rink but they were mad at him.

 
OTHER INFORMATION
 
Jessie claims his lawyers asked him if he was innocent and that he had lied to them.

Jessie said the boys had a clubhouse and that's why he thinks they were in the area.

When talking about the "meetings" they had, Jessie could remember about nine people showing up and at one particular meeting "Kent" was to bring a dog "as his treat," the dog was taken away in the woods where it was killed and skinned. The dog was brought back and cooked in something that looked like Crisco in a "washing machine type bucket." Jessie said he eat a little one time and got sick. "Kent" was to catch the dog at the trailer park and Jessie believed they had killed about four dogs altogether. Jessie said Jason and Damion would both have sex with Dominique at these meetings.

Jessie said he lied about the time and the rope to "trick the police and to see if they were lying."

Jessie says he feels the other boys tricked him into what he did.

Jessie claims he has felt sorry for what has happened and talks as if he wants to testify against the other boys so they will not go free and to help himself.

Jessie did say the photograph showed to him was a group picture of the boys "riding" their bycycles in front of a house. 


The claims made by the officers would be validated by Jessie four days later when he confessed to his attorney Dan Stidham.


In total, Jessie confessed to police, his attorney, and the prosecutors a total of six times. These dates include June 3rd, June 11th, and August 19th of 1993 and February 4th, February 8th, and February 17th of 1994. 

Buddy Lucas, Jessie's friend at the time, claimed that Jessie gave him a pair of shoes. Lucas said Jessie seemed bothered and claimed he beat up some people really bad, and seemed eager to get rid of the shoes. Lucas later recanted his statement. 

There was a statement given by Michael Johnson, a cell mate of Jesse's. He claimed that Jessie confessed the crime to him. Johnson wrote a letter to prosecutor Brent Davis, claiming Jessie was a cold and morbid person and added that a nightgown was left at the scene. No nightgown was ever found. 

An anonymous message board poster called "TrueRomance" claimed to be close to Jessie. She allegedly wrote him letters, talked on the phone, and visited him while he was in prison. She claimed that after awhile, she asked him point blank questions about the crime and he would give answers that would frighten her. Other "Non" websites and blogs will use these types of claims as evidence for Jessie's guilt, but the claims made by Lucas, Johnson, or "TrueRomance" cannot be substantiated. They are worth nothing, but shouldn't be used as proof of guilt.


Jessie stated repeatedly to police in confessions that he felt sorry for his role of the murders of Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers. Jessie said he cried multiple times due to the overwhelming amount of guilt. His statement would correlate with his father's girlfriend, Lee Rush. 

Lee told several officers on June 3rd of 1993 that she woke up at night to the sound of Jessie crying loudly and uncontrollably. When she went into his room and asked him what was wrong, Jessie claimed it was because his girlfriend was moving to Florida. She stated his crying fits happened several times and she expressed doubt over the reason given to her. To Lee, Jessie was acting too strange. Below are Lee's statements. She is incorrectly referred to as Mrs. Miskelley.

Detective Charlie Dabbs Report

Detective Tony Anderson Report

Deputy Sheriff Howard Tankersley Report


It should be noted that Jessie's girlfriend, Susie Brewer, didn't move to Florida. Not during the time of the murders, the trials, or anytime after.

Jessie's alibi continued to change, if not by his own account, then by his father, Jessie Sr. Jesse Sr. was interviewed by news reporters days later after his son's arrest. A reporter from KAIT-TV asked him if his son could have been with Damien and Jason on the night of the murders. Jesse Sr. stated that was a possibility, but that his son didn't murder anyone. Jessie's father would later claim that his son was home and remembered seeing him at 7:15pm that night as he prepared to go wrestle. The timing of Jessie Sr's statement was challenged by his teacher, Gloria Wilson, at the alcohol safety class he attended for DWI violations. According to the teacher, class didn't get out until at least fifteen minutes to eight, making it impossible for Jesse Sr. to have seen Jessie Jr at 7:15pm. 

The wrestling alibi would also prove false.  Fred Revelle, pro-wrestler, gave a detailed account of what happened on the day of the murders. He claimed Jessie was with the wrestling crew that evening. One piece of the detailed statement that would debunk that claim involved a check and a receipt. Revelle stated he had to give $300.00 to a man named Charles Stone for a wrestling ring he purchased. Revelle claimed he wrote the check on May 5th of 1993, the day of the murderers, was given a receipt, and that the check was deposited the next day. That's what Fred Revelle said, but the the receipt was actually dated April 27th, a little over a week before the murders. 

 

Rent Receipt

In Jessie's last two confessions, he claimed he went wrestling after the murders. If he did, it certainly was after the murder.

 Another piece of crucial information is the Evan Williams whiskey bottle Jessie had the evening of the murders. The whiskey bottle itself is not directly linked to the crime, but still plays an important role in the case to substantiate Jessie's involvement. Jessie told his attorney, Dan Stidham, that after the murders, he was mad at what Damien and Jason did to the three boys, especially he witnessed them mutilate Christopher Byers. Jessie stated that after he left, he smashed the Evan Williams whiskey bottle on an overpass between Wal-Mart and Lakeshore. 

Here is a statement by prosecutor Brent Davis during the Echols/Baldwin hearing on February 22nd, 1994:

"To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, 'If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened.'  At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.

We then take the bottle to a local liquor store where we proceeded to spend the better part of an hour matching the bottle with certain items, and lo and behold it matches with the brand name bottle Mr. Stidham had indicated that we should be looking for in the first place.

At that point Mr. Stidham says that wasn't good enough to convince him.  Additional efforts were made.  He then -- there was a week hiatus where there was no contact apparently."


Jessie stated that Vickie Hutcheson bought him the bottle of Evan Williams whiskey on the day of the murders and this would be verified by Vickie herself.

Jessie would confess, recant, and re-confess several times, before and after his trial. Ultimately, Jessie wouldn't testify in Damien and Jason's trial and maintained his innocence ever since.  This is not the phenomena that WM3 supporters make it out to be.  Ted Bundy confessed to over 100 murders, but would later recant. John Wayne Gacy would also confess to murders, but later recanted. Murderers have a tendency to do what is in their best interest or why else would they go to trial and if found guilty why would they appeal?

Jessie's low IQ score of 72 is often brought up to prove that he was tricked into a confession, but that isn't very relevant. Jessie's defense team gave him an IQ test and tried to depict Jessie as borderline mentally retarded. It should be noted that Dan Stidham, was upfront about the test and how a lower score could be beneficial to his client's case because it could possibly remove a death penalty sentence. Part of this discussion can be seen on Paradise Lost: The Childhood Murders At Robin Hood Hills. It's not out of the realm of possibility to assume that Jessie could have tried to score poorly on purpose. Something brought up during Dr. William Wilkins's cross-exanimation, the Doctor who scored Jessie. 

Jessie's IQ score may not even reveal borderline mental retardation at all, but instead, a lack of effort on his part. In Mara Leveritt's book, Devil's Knot, page 70, Jessie stated that he did poorly in school and dropped out because he simply didn't care anymore. He figured he would be a mechanic like his father. What Jessie lacked in higher learning, he made up for in street smarts, especially when it came to understanding his Miranda Rights.  

On February 5, 1994, Miskelley was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. The court sentenced him to life plus 40 years in prison.

It is without any doubt that Jessie Miskelley is guilty based on solid circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence of his confessions. The alibis made by Jessie, his father, and friends have been proven false to presumably try and protect him. Jessie placed himself at the crime  and even though he wasn't initially truthful about all the details, he would offer relevant insight to what happened. It will never be known how involved Jessie was because of his attempts to minimize his involvement, but we know he was there, and at the very least, he was an accessory to murder.

On August 19th, 2011, Jessie, along with Damien and Jason, walked free after entering an Alford plea. A guilty plea where they can maintain their innocence, but admit that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict them. 

CONVICTED!

Click Here for Part 2!