The Location of the Murders

Facts suggesting that the boys were killed on both ditch banks:

1. The Clothing

From the crime scene notes:

Near #1 Body – 3 – pair of Jeans were located.
[the word “Boy” is crossed out] Cub Scout – Blue / Yellow
Cap Located.
also three pairs of tennis Shoes located by #1 Body.
Left Shoe – Tennis (CUGA – Shoe) – Black / Purple Shoe /
Black lace is still there.
Rest of the tennis Shoes located do not have shoe strings in
them.
Cub Scouts of america Shirt Located in Creek Close to Body
#1
– 1 Pair of Jeans found is a Rustler Brand – 7 – Slim Turned
inside Out.
Cub Scout Shirt – Size 8
1-Pair of Nientendo Super Mario Underwear – Located Size 6
Located Close to Body #1
1 – Under Shirt – Blk / White – White designs – turned
inside out
Located Close to #1 Body
1 – Size 8 – Coast Highway Brand – Stripped Shirt –
Surfboard design – turned inside out.
Located Close to Body #1

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/csn.html

The clothing was all mainly found near Michael Moore’s body which was right in front of a ditch bank located on the other side of the water.

(The ditch bank near where Moore’s body was located.)

crime_scene_17

(The general location of where Moore’s body was recovered from the ditch.)

crime_scene_41

This could suggest that Moore had been on the near-by ditch bank with his killer prior to death.

 

2. The Location of the Bodies

Moore’s body was found near a ditch bank, referred to often as the “slicked off” ditch bank.

(Another photo of the “slicked off” ditch bank.)

3ftblood

(A diagram of the crime scene made by police.)

lum07

Moore died from drowning. If he died of drowning, his body had to have been located near-by the ditch prior to it’s being placed into the water, because he was beaten and tied up prior to being placed into the water. This fact would suggest, much like the location of the clothing being by his body, that the slicked off ditch bank was where his body was prior to being placed into the water.

Moore’s body was found 27ft away from the bodies of his friends.

The notes citing the distance:

#2 Body 27’ South of #1 Body
#3 Body 32’ South of Body #1
4’2” – is the Width of the [the word “Stream” is crossed
out] Creek Where body #1 Was found.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/csn.html

dictated by Lieutenant Diane Hester:
Body #2 was found 27 feet south of body #1
Body #3 was found approximately 32 feet south of body #1
The width of the stream where body #1 was found is 4 feet 3 inches – 2 inches, 3 inches? 4 feet – correction, 4 feet 2 inches – and what? The width is consistant to where the other – body #2 and body #3 were found also.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/crime_scene_notes_dictated.html

The bodies of Chris and Stevie were located next to a different ditch bank, which was nearer to the path you would take to enter and exit the crime scene.

(Location of the bodies of Chris Byers and Stevie Branch.)

 

crime_scene_42

 

(The near-by trail located near the bodies of Byers and Branch.)

1174420_10201179770727902_477197288_n

If Moore was being attacked and murdered near Chris and Stevie, then he likely should have been found near the same ditch bank then as Chris and Stevie. However Moore was found near the slicked off ditch bank.

The bodies of Chris and Stevie were found 27ft away from Moore and were in front of a different ditch bank. Stevie, much like Moore had died of drowning. If he drowned, he had to have been subdued near-by to where his body was found, and the likely location then for that would be the ditch bank which was near to the bodies.

3. The Fact that Two of the Victims Drowned

This can’t be emphasized enough, that if two of the victims drowned their bodies had to have sat tied up near-by to wherever their bodies were found. It seems unlikely that the killer was going to just arbitrarily carry Moore’s body 27ft away from his friends for no apparent reason what so ever, when it would have been simpler for them to place the body near to where Chris and Stevie were found.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autsb.html

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html

4. The Location of the Luminol

Luminol reactions were located on both sides of the ditch, located on both ditch banks.

(Locations of luminol reactions as shown in police diagrams.)

lum07

lum02

lum06

However photos were only taken from one ditch bank, likely because the bodies had been placed on the ditch banks by police near to where the bodies were located in the water and could have resulted from this and not from the crime. Lighting conditions were also cited for not photographing those locations.

Only two spots were ever really looked at as possibly being crime related from the murder itself. And these two spots were located on the slicked off ditch bank.

In total there were three spots that registered for luminol reactions on the slicked off ditch bank. The first spot, described as a “V” shaped pattern was looked at at one point as a possible spot that Chris Byers could have initially been castrated.

(Photo of the “V” pattern.)

V7

The second spot was where Michael Moore’s body had been set by police.

(Photo of this location.)

Moore1

And the third spot was a large spot, said to be 3ft in diameter by police.

bloodbath7

They were concerned from the apparent heavy blood loss that this was where one of the bodies sat during the commission of the crime and was not from the police setting Moore’s body on the ditch bank.

(Location of the three luminol reactions)

ditchbankreference2

Notes on the luminol:

Photo #1 was shot at a point 7’0” from the mark on the large oak tree, where the paint
spot had been sprayed as a reference point to measure from, this was in a straight line
between the huge oak and the other tree that had another paint spot on it for a second
reference point. This area had a spot that illuminated
to the naked eye that appeared to be about three feet in diameter indicating a heavy blood
area.

Photo #2 is an area of illumination that is directly over the spot where victim number 1
was lain upon the bank when he was pulled from the water. This spot is 3’8” from the
spot on the large oak tree in a direct line between that spot and location the body was
found in the water.

Photo #3 was taken on a root of the oak tree with the reference spot, the root is 6’0”
from the reference point in a straight line from that point heading straight into the water.
The fluoresced area in front of this large root indicated an area that was down sloping
toward the water, the illuminate spot formed a ‘V’ like shape!

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_tanderson.html

As to the “V” pattern, it could have been caused by clothing from the victims being set on the ditch bank.

(Photo of victim clothing sitting in spot where luminol reaction was made.)

BLOWEDUP

But the third spot, the one that is 3ft in diameter can’t really be explained away. The spot could possibly either be blood from Chris Byers or Michael Moore. And given that Byers’ body was found near a different ditch bank and Moore’s body found near the slicked off ditch bank, it would seem more likely that this spot was related to Moore’s murder, and thus more likely his blood and not Chris Byers’.

This luminol reaction would again suggest that Moore’s body sat near-by on the ditch bank prior to being placed into the water.

CONCLUSION:

(Photo showing both ditch banks. The slicked off ditch bank is on the left side and the Branch and Byers one located on the right, behind the three trees in the middle of the photo.)

crime_scene_53

It would seem to be the simplest solution to the situation that Moore was beaten and tied up on the slicked off ditch bank, and that most likely the blood present there was from his murder.

Second the next most logical solution is that Chris Byers and Stevie Branch were murdered on the ditch bank where their bodies were set by the investigators who recovered the bodies.

A third conclusion is that this does not discredit any argument of blood on the slicked off ditch bank or even blood on any of the ditch banks. The reason being, is that the blood on the slicked off ditch bank would have more likely been as a result of the head injuries to Moore and not of a possible castration of Chris Byers. While Chirs Byers certainly can’t be eliminated as a source for the blood on the slicked off ditch bank, it would seem less likely. And as to the other ditch bank, while luminol reactions were detected on it, no photos were ever taken of the location. Additionally the spot was trampled on by investigators and was muddy and the bodies were soon set on it by investigaters and visible blood could have been left by the still bleeding bodies after they were recovered. The whole argument then on the blood then becomes moot, at least as to the castration of Byers and visible blood, since it was something that was not really documented as to the second ditch bank and because the bank had been compromised by investigators walking on it and laying the bodies on it.

The Phone Call Girls

Months after the arrests of the WM3, a group of girls often nicknamed “The Phone Call Girls”, stated that they could alibi two of them. On the night of May 5, 1993; Heather Cliett, Holly George, and Jennifer Bearden would all struggle through-out the day to get a hold of Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols.

It would begin with Heather Cliett stating that her, Holly, and Jennifer had been on the phone in a three-way call on the night of the murders, and had talked to Damien around 10 or 10:30 that night.

She gave these statements on June 7th and 8th, right after the arrests.

On September 10th, in a statement taken about 5 months after the day in question, Holly George claimed she called Damien around 3:30 p.m.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
TRIPLE HOMICIDE
BYERS/BRANCH/MOORE

ON 091093, I DETECTIVE B. RIDGE WENT TO THE RESIDENCE OF HOLLIE GEORGE IN BARTLETT, TENNESSE. I HAD FOUND THAT HOLLIE HAD BEEN ON THE TELEPHONE WITH DAMIEN ECHOLS ON THE DAY OF THE ABOVE NOTED HOMICIDE. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT SHE HAD TALKED WITH DAMIEN ON THE TELEPHONE AT ABOUT 3:30 PM. SHE REPORTED THAT SHE HAD KNOWN DAMIEN FOR ABOUT A WEEK PRIOR TO THE TELEPHONE CALL. SHE INFORMED ME THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF JENNIFER BEARDEN HAVING CALLED DAMIEN AND TALKED WITH HIM DURING PERIODS OF TIME ON THAT SAME DAY. HOLLIE ALSO STATED THAT SHE HAD CALLED JASON ON THE SAME DAY. A TAPED INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED AS TO THE FACTS THAT SHE RELAYED TO ME WITH HER MOTHER BEING PRESENT ALONG WITH DETECTIVE BILL DURHAM, AND THE FIANCE OF HOLLIES’S MOTHER.

DETECTIVE B. RIDGE
WEST MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/hollygreport.html

Holly had also tried to reach Jason Baldwin that day, with no luck either.

At somewhere between 4:30 and 5 p.m. Heather had called her boyfriend Jason’s house, with no answer. According to her the phone rang about 8 times.

Jennifer Bearden in a statement also taken on September 10, 1993 would claim to remember talking to both Damien and Jason several times on May 5th.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
TRIPLE HOMICIDE
BYERS/BRANCH/MOORE

ON 091093, I MET WITH JENNIFER BEARDEN AT HER RESIDENCE IN BARTLETT, TENNESSEE. THE INTERVIEW WAS A RESULT OF HAVING OBTAINED INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH DAMIEN ON THE DAY OF THE HOMICIDE. SHE INFORMED ME OF SEVERAL TIMES WHEN SHE HAD BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH DAMIEN AND JASON DURING THE AFTERNOON AFTER SCHOOL AND UNTIL ABOUT 9:30 PM ON THE EVENING OF 050593. SHE GAVE A TAPED STATEMENT OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON THAT EVENING.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jenbreport.html

Her statement would both contradict George’s and Cliett’s as well as Jason’s uncle who was claiming that Jason mowed his lawn that day between 4:30 and 6:30.

She first placed herself and Holly on the phone with Damien in a three way call. Then Holly hung-up and the three stopped talking. So, Jennifer called Damien back, and the two talked a bit more.

Jennifer: We weren’t talking about much we were just talking about you know if we were going to the skating rink this weekend, that weekend, and um, and Holly had to get off the phone, because her mom needed to use it. And um, I said Damien I’ll call you right back, she said, he said okay, and so he hang up, and um call, and I called him back. And we talked for a little bit, and he goes can you call me back, I’m going to Jason’s, he said call me in about 30 minutes, and I said okay. I called him back in about 30 minutes at Jason’s.

Ridge: And about what time was that call you made to Jason’s?

Jennifer: Between, it had to be some where in between 4:15 and 5, something like that 5, 5:30.

Ridge: Who answered the phone at Jason’s?

Jennifer: Jason.

Ridge: And did you talk to Damien?

Jennifer: Yeah, I talked to Jason about 5 minutes and the (inaudible) with Damien and he really wasn’t talking, because they were playing video games with his little brother Matt.

This statement directly contradicts both Holly and Heather, who were unable to get a hold of Jason during this time period. Jason’s uncle Hurbert Bartoush would also say the following…

STATEMENT OF: Hubert B. Bartoush DATE: PAGE:
1037 Park W. Mphs.
DOB: 10-3-29 S/R [omitted]

On 5-5-93 Jason Baldwin, my Grand Nephew, came to my house at about 4:30 PM and mowed my yard. He was alone when he was at my house. He left my house at about 6:30 PM and said he was going to Walmart to play video games. I remember the times because Jeopardy was coming on when he got here and Wheel of Fortune was coming on when he left.

I have written this statement consisting of 1 page[s], and I affirm to the truth and accuracy of the facts contained therein.

This statement was completed at 1:56 PM., on the 14 day of June 1993.

WITNESS: Det. B. Ridge
Hubert B. Bartoush
WITNESS: Signature of person giving voluntary statement

How could he be at his uncle’s mowing the lawn and talking to Jennifer at the same time? Someone has to be wrong there,  either Jennifer, his uncle, or both.

Ridge: Okay, and after that conversation you with him.

Jennifer: He said him and Jason were going to go some where, him and Jason were going some where and that he um, wanted me to call him later at his house around 8 and I said okay.

Ridge: Okay, did he say where he was going to go?

Jennifer: No.

So, she claimed that he told her to call him back at around 8 p.m.


This is Hollie George’s account of the three way call.
RIDGE: OKAY, ABOUT WHAT TIME THAT DAY WERE YOU ON THE PHONE THE FIRST TIME WITH DAMIEN?

HOLLY: ABOUT 3:30

RIDGE: ABOUT 3:30, THAT’S AFTER YOU HAD GOTTEN OUT OF SCHOOL? OKAY, WHO WAS ON THE PHONE WITH YOU?

HOLLY: JENNIFER BEARDEN AND DAMIEN

RIDGE: SO IT WAS A THREE WAY PHONE

HOLLY: UM UM (YES)

RIDGE: OKAY, DID YOU CALL ANYBODY ELSE THAT DAY?

HOLLY: THAT DAY ANYBODY?

RIDGE: YEA

HOLLY: YEA, MY FRIENDS

RIDGE: OKAY, DID YOU CALL ANYBODY IN WEST MEMPHIS THAT DAY?

HOLLY: I DON’T THINK SO

RIDGE: OKAY

HOLLY: BESIDE DAMIEN AND I CALLED JASON (ILLEGIBLE) ANSWERED OR ANYTHING

RIDGE: OKAY, WHAT TIME DID YOU CALL JASON

HOLLY: OH, I DON’T KNOW, IT WAS AFTER I TALKED TO DAMIEN OR SO

RIDGE: SO SOMETIME AFTER 3:30 YOU TRIED TO CALL JASON AND COULDN’R GET AN ANSWER?

HOLLY: (INAUDIBLE)

RIDGE: OKAY, AT 3:30 WHEN YOU CALLED FOR DAMIEN WAS HE THERE?

HOLLY: UM UM (YES)

RIDGE: DID HE ANSWER THE PHONE OR DID SOMEONE ELSE PHONE AND HE COME TO THE PHONE?

HOLLY: I THINK HE ANSWERED THE PHONE

Holly George gave a further breakdown of that night.

Holly would insist that she only spoke with Damien once that night, and never talked with anyone else. She was stating that she was told by Jennifer Bearden later on that she called Damien back at 9 p.m.

RIDGE: SINCE THAT TIME HAVE YOU FOUND OUT ANYBODY ELSE THAT TALKED TO DAMIEN ON THE TELEPHONE THAT DAY?

HOLLY: NO, BESIDES JENNIFER BEARDEN AND

RIDGE: SHE HAD TOLD YOU SHE CALLED HIM AFTER

HOLLY: AFTER I HAD TALKED TO HIM AND HER EARLIER

RIDGE: OK DO YOU KNOW WHEN SHE CALLED HIM?

HOLLY: LIKE RIGHT AFTER I GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH HER AND THEY TALKED FOR A WHILE AND THEN THEY HANG UP (ILLEGIBLE) JENNIFER HAD TO GET OFF THE PHONE AND THEN SHE CALLED BACK LIKE AT 9 O’CLOCK OR SO

RIDGE: SHE CALLED BACK AT ABOUT 9?

HOLLY: (INAUDIBLE)

RIDGE: DID SHE TELL YOU WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT?

HOLLY: UN UN (NO)

RIDGE: OKAY, DID SHE SAY THAT SHE HAD TRIED TO CALL HIM THAT EVENING AND COULDN’T GET HIM?

HOLLY: SHE SAID SHE TRIED ONCE COULDN’T GET A HOLD OF HIM BECAUSE NOBODY ANSWERED

RIDGE: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT DO YOU KNOW?

HOLLY: UN UN (NO) I FORGOT

RIDGE: BUT SHE TOLD YOU ABOUT IT OKAY, UM, DO YOU REMEMBER TALKING WITH HEATHER CLIETT THAT DAY?

HOLLY: THAT DAY NO

RIDGE: YOU DIDN’T TALK WITH HER AT ALL?

HOLLY: (INAUDIBLE)

RIDGE: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HEATHER’S PHONE NUMBER IS?

HOLLY: YEA, I THINK IT’S UPSTAIRS IN MY BEDROOM BUT I DON’T KNOW IT

RIDGE: YOU DO HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN SOMEEWHERE? WHERE DID YOU MEET HEATHER?

HOLLY: SKATING RINK

RIDGE: OKAY…OKAY DO YOU DAMIEN’S PHONE NUMBER?

HOLLY: IT’S UPSTAIRS

RIDGE: YOU DON’T KNOW IT IN MEMORY?

HOLLY: UN UN (NO)

RIDGE: OKAY HOW ABOUT JASON’S?

HOLLY: (INAUDIBLE) NO I HAD IT BUT I DON’T HAVE IT NO MORE

RIDGE: OKAY, DO ARE, DO YOU NORMALLY WRITE YOUR PHONE NUMBERS DOWN THAT, PEOPLE YOU CALL OR DO YOU JUST HAVE SOME NUMBERS YOU JUST KNOW IN YOUR HEAD?

HOLLY: I HAVE SOME NUMBERS I KNEW IN MY HEAD, BUT THEIR ALL WRITTEN DOWN

RIDGE: OKAY, DID YOU EVER KNOW THEIR NUMBERS?

HOLLY: YEAH, I KNEW, I KNEW THEM AND THAT’S WHY I DIDN’T WRITE JASON’S DOWN, BECAUSE I KNEW IT

RIDGE: YEA

HOLLY: AND THEN I WENT TO WRITE IT DOWN AND I DIDN’T KNOW IT, BUT I KNEW DAMIEN’S SO I WROTE IT DOWN

RIDGE: OKAY, SO YoU TRIED TO CALL JASON THAT DAY AND YOU COULDN’T ANSWER AND THAT WAS SHORTLY AFTER YOU HAD TALKED TO DAMIEN ABOUT 3:30, AND YOU WERE ONLY ON THE PHONE WITH DAMIEN ABOUT 5 MINUTES THAT DAY, IS THAT RIGHT?

HOLLY: UM UM (YES)

RIDGE: UH, WHEN’S THE NEXT TIME AFTER THE PHONE CALLS THAT YOU SAW DAMIEN AGAIN?

HOLLY: LATE THAT FRIDAY NIGHT

Heather Cliett however gave a drasticlly different account of May 5th in this undated statement.

“Later that evening I received a call from a girl that I know as Hollie who lives in Bartlett, Tennessee and has a friend named Jenifer who also lives in Tennessee. I had met Hollie and Jenifer at the skating rink in West Memphis a few months before. Hollie must have a 3 party line because when she called me Jenefer was on the phone with her. Hollie called me at about 9:00 PM and I stayed on the phone with her until about 10:30 PM. After a while Jenifer got off of the phone. At about 10:00 PM Hollie called Damien at his humber that I belive is 732-4018 and Damien’s mother got on the phone and said something to the effect that she didn’t want young girls to be calling Damien at 10:00 at night. Damien got the phone away from his mom and he told Hollie to call back in a few minutes.

Hollie called back while I was still on the phone at about 10:15 or 10:30 PM and Damien got on the phone. They were talking between themselves and began talking about how Damien wanted to get together with Jenifer. I listened to them for a few minutes and said that I had to go.

On Friday I saw Jason at the skating rink and I only said Hi to him on that day. I called Jason on Saturday and asked him where he was on Wednesday and he told me that he was at his uncle’s house mowing his yard.

on Friday 050793 I talked to Hollie at the skating rink and I asked her where Damien had been on Wednesday when they were trying to call him and she stated that Damien had been out walking in the neighborhood. She stated that Damien was trying to get a date with Jenifer. I assume that the neighborhood she was talking about was around Ingram street. Hollie is a friend of Damien and she was helping to get Jenifer and Damien together.”

Now Heather says, that they eventually got a hold of Damien later that night, and they talked on a three way call first with her, Jennifer, and Holly. Jennifer got on the phone and talked to them around 9. And Damien didn’t get on the phone till some time after 10. She said that she sat on the line and listend as Holly call Damien after Jennifer left. And Heather states that Holly may have finally gotten Damien on the phone at about 10-10:30.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/heather_cliett/statement_01.jpg

Holly in a Sept 22 interview would repeat that she only talked to Damien once that night, and they didn’t talk again.

RIDGE- NORTH STREET IN BARTLETT, TENNESSEE. OKAY, HOLLIE THE QUESTIONS I NEED TO ASK YOU TODAY …WE’VE ALREADY TALKED ONCE, UH, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU TALK TO DAMION ON THE 5TH OF MAY.

HOLLIE- ABOUT ONCE.

RIDGE- ONE TIME. AND WHAT TIME WAS THAT PHONE CONVERSATION?

HOLLIE- ABOUT 3 OR 4.

RIDGE- ABOUT WHAT TIME WOULD THAT BE?

HOLLIE- ABOUT 3:30 OR 4:00, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

RIDGE- OKAY, AND WAS THAT A THREE-WAY CONVERSATION?

HOLLIE- UH HUH.

RIDGE- AND WHO WAS ON THE PHONE?

HOLLIE- JENNIFER, DAMION AND ME.

RIDGE- OKAY. DID YOU CALL DAMION, OR DID HE CALL YOU/

HOLLIE- I CALLED DAMION.

RIDGE- OKAY. DURING THE REST OF THAT DAY, DID YOU TALK TO DAMION AGAIN ON THE TELEPHONE.

HOLLIE- UH UH.

RIDGE- OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF JENNIFER TALKED TO HIM AGAIN ON THE TELEPHONE?

HOLLIE- SHE SAID SHE TALKED TO HIM AT LIKE 9:00 THAT NIGHT.

So, she says there was no three way call that night, contradicting Heather’s assertion of the day’s events. Heather’s version of events however pre-date both Holly’s and Jennifer’s by about 3 months, making her memories of the day the closest to the actual day in question.

On June 7th, 1993 Heather was interviewed by police:

Heather states that Jason Baldwin has been her boyfriend for 1 month.

States that on 5-5-93 at about 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. she tried to call Jason at his house stats that there was no answer. Stats that she called again at about 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m.– states that the phone was busy at that time and she did not try again. Stats that she did not see or talk to him again until that Friday night at the skating rink. He was there with Damien and Jesse. Stats that she just said hi to him– nothing else. That Saturday around 11:00 a.m. she called Jason on the phone — states that she told him that she tried to call him on Wednesday — he told her that he had to go and mow his uncles yard.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/heatherc1.html

Heather would also make this statement on June 8th.

“I have known Jason Baldwin for 1 1/2 months. He has been my boyfriend for 1 month. On May 5th, 93 I tried to call him around 4:30 pm/ 5:00 pm, there was no answer. Later, around 6:15 pm I tried & it was busy. I didn’t try again! around 9:00 pm I was talking to a friend from Bartlett (Hollie), we tried to get a hold of Michael Wayne “Damien” Echols from then until around 10:30 pm, when we finally got in touch w/him! I didn’t really get to talk to him, aside from “Hi”, then him & Hollie started talking about Jennifer, (Damien’s other girlfriend) so I let them go! Hollie & Jennifer’s last names are unavailable to me. The next day Hollie told me that “Damien” said he had just been out walking around. She also told me that “Damien” & her were talking about, & trying to get him & Jennifer together. May 7th, 93, when I spoke to Jason, I ask him where he was on the 5th, he said he was mowing his uncle’s yard. I’ve been at several places w/Jason, & he’s been at my home, as well as me being at his, & he has never mentioned anything to me or who we were around about the murders.

I met Hollie & Jennifer at the skating rink. I have not asked for or been given either number. I will, if I see Hollie or Jennifer, try to get their numbers.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/hcstatement.html

In this earlier account she’s more vague on the times and they get Damien on the phone closer to 10:30 that night, and Bearden doesn’t talk to Damien in a three-way call, and possibly may not have talked to him that night.

Now Jennifer Bearden would claim that she didn’t talk to Damien until around 9; 9:20, or possibly even 9:30. However if Cliett’s  accounts are true then at the time she was supposedly talking to Damien, she was actually talking with Heather and Holly.

Ridge: Okay, and when you called back about 8?

Jennifer: His grandmother said he wasn’t there, and I was suppose to call back around 9, and I called back around 9:20, 9:30 and I talk to him for a little bit, but then I had to get off the phone, because I wasn’t suppose to be on the phone after 9:30.

Ridge: So you have curfew of when your suppose to be on the telephone and when you have to be off it, that’s a school night? Okay, um, where did you first meet Damien?

She then insisted that she called Damien around 8, and spoke to his grandmother, who told her to call back around 9, and at some time possibly around 9:30 she finally gets a hold of him.

She would also deny taking part in the three-way call which Heather stated that she was part of prior to getting a hold of Damien.

Ridge: Okay, alright, is there anything else about the phone calls that were made on that evening that just stuck’s out to you?

Jennifer: Un Un (No)

Ridge: That we haven’t covered, we have pretty will covered that evening, did you talk to anybody else during that period of time?

Jennifer: I really don’t remember, I think I talked to Holly a little bit, I don’t remember who else I may have talked to, I think mostly I talked to Holly, Damien, Jason.

Ridge: Okay, well when Heather says she talked to you and Holly on the 3 way that evening is that just totally untrue? Or do you think she is just mistaking about the date?

Jennifer: She is probably mistaking, because I really don’t remember talking to her.

Ridge: On that date?

Jennifer: I don’t remember talking to her.

Ridge: How about

Jennifer: I don’t believe that me, Holly, Heather have ever been on the phone 3 way.

Ridge: What’s the reason basically?

Jennifer: Because Heather likes Jason, or like Jason, but Jason had liked Holly, but Holly was going out with somebody else, but she didn’t like Jason only as a friend. That’s why Heather and Holly never got along.

It seems very possible that since Holly and Jennifer were close friends, and had given statements months after Heather’s that they had influenced each other’s memory of the day. Jennifer also claims that Heather would never talk to Holly, and must be mistaken on the date. But even if she were mistaken about the day of the call, clearly Heather and Holly were friends and talked to each other, contrary to Bearden’s assertions, as she knew that Holly had three way calling.

In a 2004 affidavit, Bearden stated that she lied to the police about the time her phone call with Damien occurred.

“I understand that I told officers that I called Damien back at around 9:20 p.m. or 9:30 p.m., so I explained that I called him no later than 9:30 p.m. But my belief is that the phone call lasted past 9:30 p.m. I was supposed to have been in bed by 10:00 p.m. I was concerned that if my mother learned that I had been on the phone past 9:30 p.m., she would have thought I had not been obeying her, or conducting myself as she would have expected.”

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jb_habeas_rule37/exh54_affidavit_jennifer_bearden.pdf

She had changed the time for her phone call, because she didn’t want to get in trouble at the time.

In the same affidavit she’s vague on times, not mentioning the time as 8 for when she first called. Instead she just says it was 9. Does that mean she called at 9 and not 8?

“I recall making a call to Damien’s house that night, May 5, 1993. I believe the call was made around 9:00 p.m. This was the night before the announcement of the killings of the three young boys. The first time I called I got a busy signal. The phone at Damien’s house did not have call-waiting. I called again and Damien’s grandmother answered. She told me that Damien was not home yet.

At some point later on I called again and I got Damien on the phone. I believe I stayed on the phone with him from about a half hour. My impression is that this call began at around 9:30 p.m. and ended around 10:00 p.m.”

Did this mean that she called an hour later like she said another statement?

Jennifer: He said him and Jason were going to go some where, him and Jason were going some where and that he um, wanted me to call him later at his house around 8 and I said okay

Ridge: Okay, and when you called back about 8

Jennifer: His Grandmother said he wasn’t there, and I was suppose to call back around 9. and I called back around 9:20, 9:30 and I talk to him for a little bit, but then I had to get off the phone, because I wasn’t suppose to be on the phone after 9:30.

How would Heather know that Holli had 3 way calling, if she had never been on the phone with her like Jennifer Bearden says?

http://callahan.8k.com/images/bearden/bearden02.jpg

Meaning if she called back an hour later, like in her previous statements it could very well mean that she talked to him at 10 or 10:30 since she shifted her time around? Previously she said she called at 8 and then called back at as late as 9:30.

In her testimony during Jason’s Rule 37 hearing, Jennifer would go back to claiming that she called around 8, only this time changing it to 8:30 and being told to call back an hour later.

A] Yes, I tried to call later that evening, uh, it was probably around 8:30, uh, it was busy.

Q] At Damien’s house?

A] Yes.

Q] Okay. So then what happens; did you get a busy signal, or what?

A] I then called back and spoke to his grandmother and she told me he wasn’t there.

Q] Okay. And what time do you remember that being?

A] It was before nine o’clock. She told me to call back around 9:00.

Q] Did you end up calling back?

A] Yes, but it was closer to 9:20 when I called back.

Q] All right. And were you able to get a hold of Damien then?

A] Yes.

Q] Did y’all talk?

A] Yes.

Q] Do you remember how long then — and, and is this a three-way or is this is just direct between you and Damien?

A] No, this is just Damien and I.

Q] Uh, do you remember how long y’all talked?

A] Uh, we spoke until ten o’clock.

Q] Until 10:00 p.m.?

A] Yes.

Further during the hearing she’d again try to insist that Holly and Heather would never be on the phone together.

A] Heather Cliett, uh, she was, uh, lived in West Memphis, uh, she was intersted in Jason during that time we were friends.

Q] And was Heather also involved in some of the phone calls, in the three-way phone calls?

A] Uh, no, I believe I spoke with Heather myself, you know, on a three-way call. But she was never on the phone with Holly and I. Holly and Heather did not get along.

Q] Holly and Heather didn’t get along, but Heather and you were good friends?

A] Yes.

She also mentioned in cross-examination that they all talked to each other by phone on a nearly daily basis. It was then possible that Jennifer may simply have been remembering the wrong day, when she was interviewed.

Q] Okay. And how is it that you remember that you made those particular calls on the night of the murder?

A] It was a very traumatic experience around that whole time. I mean, I remember a lot about that time.

Q] Okay. But you never, I assume that you, the next night or the next night that you talked on the phone with Jason and Damien; that relationship continued, didn’t it?

A] Yes.

Q] And when did it end?

A] When they were arrested.

Q] Okay. So it continued for, I guess, daily calls for another month?

A] Yes.

Q] Every day?

A] Yes.

Q] And so that’s how you remember that you made those particular calls in that time?

A] Yes.

In essence there was nothing special about that night for her to remember it in-particularly. Damien and Jason didn’t become suspects until some time later, and weren’t arrested until a month later. May 5th, was also not the last time that she had spoken with them over the phone. They had talked non-stop for the rest of May and right up till their arrest early the next month.

Another point which came out later, which strengthens Heather’s version is that Jennifer and Damien were attempting to date at the time of the murders. She stated that Holly was helping them get together, yet Holly and Jennifer denied to the police that she was interested in being Damien’s girlfriend.

From Holly’s first interview:

RIDGE: OKAY, UH, WHERE, WHAT IS JENNIFER’S REASON’S FOR WANTING TO CALL AND TALK WITH DAMIEN?

HOLLY: THEY’RE JUST FRIENDS

RIDGE: JUST FRIENDS, WERE THEY TRYING TO GO OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

HOLLY: NO

RIDGE: GETTING CLOSE, OKAY, DO YOU KNOW IF DAMIEN HAS ANY GIRL FRIENDS OR NOT?

HOLLY: OTHER THAN DOMINI, NO

RIDGE: YOU KNEW ABOUT DOMINI?

HOLLY: I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT HER UNTIL LIKE EVERBODY SAID SHE WAS PREGNANT WITH HIS CHILD AND STUFF

RIDGE: OKAY

HOLLY: AND STUFF

From Jennifer’s first interview:

Ridge: Do you ever meet Domini?

Jennifer: Once.

Ridge: What do you think about her?

Jennifer: I just really didn’t like her, I mean she was really cold.

Ridge: Were you and Damien like boyfriend, girlfriend, or just getting to know each other.

Jennifer: Un un (No) I was going out with Terry, I was going out with Terry.

Ridge: Okday, so you and Damien were just starting to know each other?

Jennifer: Yea, we were like really good friends.

Both girls denied that Jennier was interested in Damien.

But in her Rule 37 testimony she admitted to being in sort of second girlfriend to Damien.

Q] Okay. Now let’s see. Uh, Now your birthday is July, 24th, 1980?

A] Yes.

Q] Okay. So when you were making these calls and having these three-way conversations in sort of a boyfriend/girlfriend situation with Damien and Jason, uh, you were what — twelve years old?

A] Yes.

Q] Okay. And I believe you did say your mother, your parents weren’t aware that you were doing this?

A] No.

Q] Okay. So they weren’t aware and you didn’t tell them, did you?

A] NO.

Q] When did you tell them?

A] When the police asked to speak to us.

Q] Okay. Not when the boys were arrested?

A] No.

But what did Bearden say back in 1993?

Ridge: Do you ever meet Domini?

Jennifer: Once.

Ridge: What do you think about her?

Jennifer: I just really didn’t like her, I mean she was really cold.

Ridge: Were you and Damien like boyfriend, girlfriend, or just getting to know each other.

Jennifer: Un un (No) I was going out with Terry, I was going out with Terry.

Ridge: Okday, so you and Damien were just starting to know each other?

Jennifer: Yea, we were like really good friends.

What did Holly George say?

RIDGE: OKAY, UH, WHERE, WHAT IS JENNIFER’S REASON’S FOR WANTING TO CALL AND TALK WITH DAMIEN?

HOLLY: THEY’RE JUST FRIENDS

RIDGE: JUST FRIENDS, WERE THEY TRYING TO GO OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

HOLLY: NO

RIDGE: GETTING CLOSE, OKAY, DO YOU KNOW IF DAMIEN HAS ANY GIRL FRIENDS OR NOT?

HOLLY: OTHER THAN DOMINI, NO

RIDGE: YOU KNEW ABOUT DOMINI?

HOLLY: I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT HER UNTIL LIKE EVERBODY SAID SHE WAS PREGNANT WITH HIS CHILD AND STUFF

RIDGE: OKAY

HOLLY: AND STUFF

Both Holly and Jennifer lied about Jennifer and Damien wanting to date. And Jennifer lied about the time she alleged that she spoke to Damien, and one could assume that since she was Damien’s friend and a potential girlfriend, there would be a strong motivating factor for her to want to alibi Damien. This also gave her motive to try and discredit Heather, by saying she wasn’t friends with Holly, which isn’t true.

Heather was able to establish that she spoke to Holly about how Jennifer and Damien were trying to get together. Would someone who wasn’t friends with her know that?

“The next day Hollie told me that “Damien” said he had just been out walking around. She also told me that “Damien” & her were talking about, & trying to get him & Jennifer together.” 

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/hcstatement.html

Holly also had Heather’s phone number, meaning they clearly would have talked over the phone.

RIDGE: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HEATHER’S PHONE NUMBER IS?

HOLLY: YEA, I THINK IT’S UPSTAIRS IN MY BEDROOM BUT I DON’T KNOW IT

RIDGE: YOU DO HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN SOMEEWHERE? WHERE DID YOU MEET HEATHER?

HOLLY: SKATING RINK

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/hollyg1.html

But Holly says, that Jennifer told her that she, and she alone spoke to Damien that night…

RIDGE: SINCE THAT TIME HAVE YOU FOUND OUT ANYBODY ELSE THAT TALKED TO DAMIEN ON THE TELEPHONE THAT DAY?

HOLLY: NO, BESIDES JENNIFER BEARDEN AND

RIDGE: SHE HAD TOLD YOU SHE CALLED HIM AFTER

HOLLY: AFTER I HAD TALKED TO HIM AND HER EARLIER

RIDGE: OK DO YOU KNOW WHEN SHE CALLED HIM?

HOLLY: LIKE RIGHT AFTER I GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH HER AND THEY TALKED FOR A WHILE AND THEN THEY HANG UP (ILLEGIBLE) JENNIFER HAD TO GET OFF THE PHONE AND THEN SHE CALLED BACK LIKE AT 9 O’CLOCK OR SO

RIDGE: SHE CALLED BACK AT ABOUT 9?

HOLLY: (INAUDIBLE)

RIDGE: DID SHE TELL YOU WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT?

HOLLY: UN UN (NO)

RIDGE: OKAY, DID SHE SAY THAT SHE HAD TRIED TO CALL HIM THAT EVENING AND COULDN’T GET HIM?

HOLLY: SHE SAID SHE TRIED ONCE COULDN’T GET A HOLD OF HIM BECAUSE NOBODY ANSWERED

RIDGE: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT DO YOU KNOW?

HOLLY: UN UN (NO) I FORGOT

RIDGE: BUT SHE TOLD YOU ABOUT IT OKAY, UM, DO YOU REMEMBER TALKING WITH HEATHER CLIETT THAT DAY?

HOLLY: THAT DAY NO

RIDGE: YOU DIDN’T TALK WITH HER AT ALL?

HOLLY: (INAUDIBLE)

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/hollyg2.html

Holly would state years later, that she no longer remembered the specifics of the night in question, just that she thought that she spoke with Jason and Damien that night.

“I remember that during the investigation of the West Memphis murder case, I was asked questions by police officers regarding my memory of phone calls that involved Damien and Jason.

I also have a memory of talking on the phone with Damien and Jason in May of 1993, and during the days surrounding the discovery of the bodies of the three young boys who were killed in West Memphis in May of 1993. I have no independent recollection of the exact time of specific phone calls or who may have initiated them.”

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jb_habeas_rule37/exh55_affidavit_holly_thorpe.pdf

The events of that night, really boil down to either believing Heather’s version of events or Jennifer’s version of events.

Heather’s account stands as the most credible and had been the first and freshest account of that day, and as such might have been the real version of that night, and not Jennifer and Holly’s account. Cliett gave her version of events in June, where as Holly and Jennifer didn’t give there’s to police until September.

The defense had even considered calling Bearden as a witness at trial, but had apparently decided against it as she never testified, most likely due to that her statement contradicted Heather’s account and the account of Jason’s uncle.

beardenbearden2

In notes from an interview with Heather, it would also state that she didn’t get a hold of Damien until about 10:30.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/heather_cliett/note_09-07-93_02.jpg

What does it all mean? Damien was unaccounted for until 10 or 10:30 that night.

Damien and Robin Hood Hills

A more recent denial by Damien Echols, was that he didn’t live in West Memphis at the time of the murders. Echols and his supporters claimed that he lived in the City of Marion, which neighbors West Memphis. At the time of his arrest he lived at this trailer…

de_pm_05

It’s location? 2706 South Grove located in Broadway Trailer Park, which resides in… West Memphis.

de_exhibit_A

During an interview with CNN’s Larry King Echols stated the following:

KING: Did you live in the vicinity where they lived?

ECHOLS: Well, I lived — I didn’t actually live in West Memphis. I lived in a small town right outside of West Memphis called Marion. So it was within, I don’t know, I’d say about a 10, 15 mile area.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/19/lkl.01.html

So, despite how Echols tried to remove himself from West Memphis, he did in fact reside there. This then made his statements a blatant lie.

In another interview from 2010 he’d have this exchange with the interviewer:

Interviewer: Let’s go back to 1993, had you, that area, that Robin hills area, was that an area you were familiar with or had ever been in?

Damien: No, it’s actually–um, most people always call us the West Memphis Three, but we actually weren’t from West Memphis, we were from um, a small town right outside of West Memphis called Marion, which almost no one knows where is. And, um, being that West Memphis is the closest thing to Marion um, it’s just sorta people look at it as almost being the same place. Uh, And all of the dealings we had were with West Memphis Police Department. So… West Memphis wasn’t a place that I went to um, a great deal of time you know? I went to school in Marion. Um, I lived in Marion. So, I didn’t really go to West Memphis a lot… at all.

Interviewer: So where these murders took place that was not an area–

Damien: No, because that would have been a residential area, uh-uh-uh, a wooded area close to a residential area. You know there weren’t any um– if I went to West Memphis it would have been to do something like say go to Wal-Mart, you know? Go to the grocery store, something like that. So it wouldn’t have been a residential area anyway…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=leEtbjm2uHI#t=532s

Here he again continues with the lie that he lived in Marion, and not only says he didn’t live there, but was unfamiliar with Robin Hood Hills, and suggests that he barely spent any time in West Memphis.

The film Paradise Lost also inadvertently placed Echols not only in West Memphis, but near Robin Hood Hills.

A quote from the scene in question:

“Reverend Tommy Stacy’s church is down the street from where the bodies were found. One year ago, Damien Echols told the church’s youth minister he had a pact with the devil, and he was going to hell.”

It then shows an interview with Stacy.

“I do know that my youth director talked to Damien extensively at a revival that we had, and he told him that he could not be saved, that he could not give his heart to Jesus. My youth director then tried to get him to take a Bible, and he made the statement that he could not take a Bible, because if he did, the rest of ’em would get him.”

SecondBaptistChurchMap_zpsd542baeb

The map clearly shows that the Second Baptist Church is not only in West Memphis, but near the crime scene.

When pressed in court, Echols admitted to walking around West Memphis with his friend Jason.

A: We like to walk around a lot just with no place particular in mind. Just start out walking and walk around all day.

Q: Did you walk quite a bit around West Memphis, then?

A: Yes, I did.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien1.html

He further was pressed and admitted walking through the neighborhood where the victims lived 2-3 times a week.

Q. Now, yesterday I asked you some general questions about, you had indicated that you and Jason quite frequently walked around areas of West Memphis?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. I want to direct your attention on this diagram — in fact, let me circle it. This area right in here which would be, I believe, east of — is that 14th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is east of 14th Street and south of the service road and the interstate. In that particular neighborhood, Market Street, Goodwin, in there, did you and Jason frequently walk and roam in that area, the same neighborhood where the three victims lived?

A. I think by looking at the map I would have had to.

Q. How often?

A. Probably in that area maybe twice a week.

Q. For how long a period?

A. A few years.

Q. How many?

A. Probably at least two years.

Q. All right. And that, when you told us yesterday that you hadn’t been over in that area, the residential area near Robin Hood Hills, were you just not thinking of that particular area?

A. No, when you said “neighborhood,” I just didn’t know what you are talking about, what that neighborhood is.

Q. But when I specified that particular area, the neighborhood that I circled, you were there two or three times a week?

A. Probably an average of two to three times a week.

Q. And what would the purpose be over there? Would you all just being walking around the neighborhood?

A. I had to walk through there to get from my house to Jason’s house. I would have to walk through there to get from my house to Domini’s house or anywhere in Marion.

Q. Okay. Where were you living at the time?

A. At the time I was arrested, Broadway Trailer Park.

Q. Okay. Well, when you were walking over here — this is the interstate, didn’t you — where, if you could, show me where you lived?

A. Right here (indicating), somewhere along in there.

Q. So you lived south of Broadway?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And what time period was that? When did you quit living south of Broadway?

A. When I was arrested.

Q. Okay. And your only reason to walk through here would be to go to and from Jason’s residence?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And that’s the path you would take, you and Jason would take a path through here and over there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that would be two or three times a week?

A. On an average.

Q. Did you have anybody else in that neighborhood that you visited or that you went over and were at their house or anything of that nature?

A. Probably, there is several people in Lakeshore.

Q. Not in Lakeshore, in the neighborhood we circled.

A. No, but I had to go through there to get to Lakeshore.

Furthermore one of his co-defendants also placed him walking around West Memphis.

“…Damien he don’t stay in one place long, he always walk around, he always go to West Memphis…he goes to West Memphis a lot…and he walks around.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_ofshe.html

From his book “Almost Home“, pages 7-8.

“A couple of strange incidents occurred during this period of my life, both which I remember vividly, but neither of which I can explain. The first happened while still living in the Mayfair apartments.

One evening as dusk approached my mother told me not to leave the walkway right in front of our apartment door. Being the unlearned heathen that I was, I beat it the moment she was out of sight. I ran around to the very back of the complex where a huge mound of sand was located, and proceeded to dig a hole with my bare hands. This was one of my favorite activities, in which I invested a huge amount of time as a child. I looked up from my digging some time later only to realize it was completely dark. I could see the streetlights on in the distance, and the night was deathly silent. No Crickets chirping, people talking, or cars driving by. Nothing but silence that comes once the movies is over and the screen goes blank. Knowing that I was now officially in trouble, I dusted myself off and started to make my way back to our apartment.

As I walked home I had to pass a place where two sections of the building came together to form a corner. The last time I had noticed this corner the apartment there was empty. Now it was dark, but the front door was open.

There was no trace of any light and the inside of the apartment was as void of illumination as some sort of vacuum. Standing in the doorway, propped against the frame with his arms folded across his chest was a man in black pants and no shirt. He had black, shoulder length hair and wore a shit-eating grin. “where you goin’, boy?” he asked in a way that said he was amused, but didn’t really expect an answer. I said nothing, just stood looking up at him. “Your mamma’s looking for you. You know you’re going to get a whipping.”

After a moment longer I continued on my way. When I encountered my mother, she had a switch in one hand and a cigarette in the other. I did indeed receive a whipping.

I never thought about this incident again, up until a day or so before I was arrested and put on trial for murder. I was eighteen years old, and the cops had been harassing me non-stop for weeks. My mother asked me one day after lunch, “Why don’t you take your shirt off and go in the back yard so I can take pictures? That way, if the cops beat you we’ll have some before and after photos.” Nodding my head, I made a trip to the bathroom where I took my shirt off. When I looked into the mirror over the sink, it hit me that I looked exactly like the man I’d seen all those years before in the dark apartment. Mirrors have always made me a little uneasy for some reason and this incident did nothing to change that.

The other bit of bizarre happenstance took place after we had moved from Mayfair and into a small trailer in the countryside. I slept in a tiny bedroom at the very end of the hallway. There were no windows, and only one way into or out of this bedroom. Fire exits? We don’t need no stinkin’ fire exits.

Late one night something woke me up. It wasn’t a noise, as the entire place was deathly silent. I rolled over and found myself face to face with a strange woman who appeared to be fast asleep in my bed. I was paralyzed with fright. So scared that I couldn’t move, couldn’t scream, couldn’t do0 anything. All I could do was stare at this sleeping woman, my eyes bulging in terror.

When the fear gave way to self-preservation I jumped from the bed and fled to my parents’ room, wailing like a fire engine. My mother and father bolted straight out of bed to the sound of me screaming, “There’s someone in my room!” My mother gave my father a scared look, but he was already on his way down the hall.

There was no woman found, and no way that anyone could have gotten past my parents’ room to leave. There was no window to crawl out of and no back door to flee through. My Parents pointed out these facts to me numerous times over the subsequent weeks, but I still couldn’t sleep more than an hour at a time. I never slept the whole night through until after we moved, which we fortunately did very soon.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=6JMDLZD_HsMC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Damien+Echols%22+%22Mayfair%22+%22Almost+Home%22&source=bl&ots=k07K_gQi4D&sig=05CtN0RytijM6sfnqUyGgM8A89g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r2JlUqfWI4eB2gXdl4DoBw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Damien%20Echols%22%20%22Mayfair%22%20%22Almost%20Home%22&f=false

Damien placed him and his family living at the Mayfair Apartments, which are located right next to the crime scene. The playground area goes right behind to the area where the pipe bridge is located.

crime_scene_drawing

The apartment complex can even be viewed from the crime scene.

207717_523914287641565_1675680068_n

discovery_woods_and_blue_beacon_looking_south

He lived right behind Robin Hood Hills.

His step dad Jack Echols would also state this in a declaration.

“There were other times when Damien had so much energy he did not know what to do. He got really excited and kind of hyper and he always walked at these times. Damien walked to some of the parks in the area, to some of his friends houses, and across town…”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/a_j_echols_declaration.html

Damien hungout at parks in the area according to his step dad.

Damien would also list the “woods” and “park” as places he frequented in the community.

392

One of Damien’s friends, Heather Cliett took the police to Robin Hood on May 10th, 1993, stating that she had seen the victims playing there before.

HESTER
5-10-93
10:10 A.M.

PICKED HEATHER CLIETT UP FROM EAST JR. HIGH – WENT TO THE DEAD END OF GOODWIN – SHE TOOK ME TO A PLACE THAT THE KIDS CALL DEVILS DEN WHERE SHE HAS SEEN ALL 3 VICTIMS ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS RIDING THEIR BIKES. TOOK A FEW PICTURES – RETURNED HER TO SCHOOL @ 10:30 A.M.

Damien’s friends had been to Robin Hood, and had even seen the victims before.

Chris Littrell another one of Damien’s friends would admit during an interview that both he, and Murray Farris had been to Robin hood before.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/littrell/chris_littrell_polygraph01.jpg

Tabitha Hollingsworth in her initial statement to police had also placed Damien and Jason as often hanging out at Robin Hood Hills.

DABBS: What do you think about Damian?

TABETHA: I think he’s a devil worshiper, I don’t like him.

DABBS: How do you know that he’s a deveil worshiper?

TABETHA: He makes signs on the street and all of that, and he’ go back under the bridge and makes of the devil.

DABBS: Has he ever tried to talk you into joining with him?

TABETHA: Ugh, ugh, cause I don’t go around him.

DABBS: What about Dominic?

TABETHA: No

DABBS: Does Dominic know that he’s a devil worshiper?

TABETHA: Yes

DABBS: What does she have to say about it?

TABETHA: She doesn’t say nothing about, I guess she don’t care.

DABBS: She doesn’t care, do you know a Justin?

TABETHA: Justin

DABBS: I mean a Jason?

TABETHA: Yeah

DABBS: What’s his name?

TABETHA: I don’t know his last name, I know where he lives though.

DABBS: Is he friends with Damian?

TABETHA: Yeah

DABBS: And Dominic?

TABETHA: Yep, very good friends, they walk around with each other all the time.

DABBS: Does he know Damian?

TABETHA: Yeah

DABBS: Does he try to get into it too?

TABETHA: As for as I know, yeah

DABBS: Do they ever act real strange or do anything out of t way?

TABETHA: They act strange all the time

DABBS: All the time? Have you ever known of anything that, you ever seen them together up, you say they camp out on this ditch here?

TABETHA: Yeah, they go back there to the river all the time.

DABBS: Have you ever heard anybody else talk about them?

TABETHA: Naw

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/tabh.html
During a questionnaire conducted by police on May 9, 1993, a series of questions would be asked. The list of questions appears below.

d_echols_may10_questionnaire

The following is a list of answers to these questions given by Damien and Jason.

de_jb_may9_answers

The answer to Question #21 was simply “Yes”.

Answer

The evidence shows that it seems highly unlikely that he wasn’t familiar with the area, and the crime scene. He not only lived in West Memphis, but often walked the neighborhood where the victims lived, and likely spent time in Robin Hood Hills with his friends.

A Question of DNA

The narrative goes as this: Three men claiming to be wrongfully convicted have DNA tests run on the evidence in their case. The evidence doesn’t match to any of the them, but a single hair matched to a step-father of one of the victims is located. So this must mean these men are innocent? Not true, the answer is surprisingly not as simple as it would seem, and far more complicated. Despite that it has been all too often claimed that the DNA testings proved them innocent, it didn’t actually exclude them.

The natural question one may ask is, how it is that it didn’t exclude them? To answer this question, it first must be understood the situation at the crime scene, and how evidence was collected. The bodies had been submerged in the water, destroying precious DNA and blood evidence that may have been located at the scene. A possible semen stain which had been located on the pants of one victim, was more or less ruined from being in the water over night. This would make it much harder to find any physical evidence, as the submersion of the bodies, naturally washed away evidence.

Kermit Channell testified to the effects of water when it comes to physical evidence.

Fogleman: Alright. And um – in regard to these pants and all the other items that you examined, what effect if any does uh – an item of evidence being in water have on your ability to find items?

Channell: Uh – being uh – wet, especially being say, submerged in the water, or even being dirty or soiled has a very detrimental effect on any type of biological materials that you might find. Being in the water can make it virtually impossible at times to identify any type of material.

Fogleman: Okay. And uh – does cold water as opposed to hot water have any particular effect on blood in particular?

Channell: I believe with uh – there are some studies with one versus the other, but uh – regardless of water temperature, still it will deteriorate the sample.

Next one must consider how the bodies were recovered.

0states_exhibit_34_crop

When the victims were recovered, the police had to enter the ditch where the bodies were located, and rifle around in the water, digging out clothing, as well as touching the bodies. This cross contaminated them, introducing hair and fibers to the scene which hadn’t previously been there before, which is surprisingly all too common in criminal investigations.

In the book “Bodies We’ve Buried” by Jarrett Hallcox and Amy Welch, it’s remarked upon, some of the items investigators accidentally introduce to the scene. One of which is even cigarette butts.

“…as much as 30 percent of all cigarette butts found at crime scenes are not left by the perpatrator, as one might assume, but by someone who actually processed the scene. It’s a little disconcerting to think that so much time and money is wasted on a potential suspect, only to find out that “suspect” is the chief officer.”

The book also states the following…

“If you ask any CSI what the biggest problem they face in the field is, they will almost always say crime scene contamination. Contamination of the scene can not only mislead the investigation, it can also be a defense attorney’s dream come true.”

0states_exhibit_38_crop

One can see from the photos that they waded around in the water.

0States_Exhibit_37A_crop

The clothing would then be collected and set on the nearby ditch bank picking up anything that may have been there as well.

jeans_on_branch_full_picture_small_size

Here one can actually see items floating around in the water unrelated to the crime, further contaminating evidence.

crime_scene_51

There had been garbage and debris through-out. A simple fact was that there had been hair and fibers at the scene which may not have been from the killer(s).

Adding to this, anything from the home of the victims had additionally been introduced to the crime scene. Hair and fibers from their home environment could have been stuck to their clothing that day, further complicating the matter.

Now according to Lisa Sakevicius in her courtroom testimony, Stevie Branch was tied with two different shoe laces.

20 Q. On Exhibit 81 — if you would refer to that exhibit.
21 A. That is from Steve Branch.
22 Q. What were your findings as to the knots on Exhibit 81?
23 A. Examination of the ligatures revealed a black shoestring on
24 the right side tied in three half hitches with an extra loop
25 around the leg to a single half hitch with a figure eight around
1509

1 the right wrist. The left side consisted of a white shoestring
2 tied in three half hitches around the wrist to three half
3 hitches around the leg.
4 Q. So on the left side on the wrist you had three half
5 hitches?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And on the ankle you had three half hitches?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. On the right side on the leg you had three half hitches
10 with what?
11 A. An extra loop around the right leg.
12 Q. On the wrist you had?
13 A. A figure eight.
14 Q. With one half hitch. Is that right?
15 A. Yes, sir.

Now, the hair connected to Terry was located on a shoe lace used to bind Michael Moore, but as seen by the above testimony, Stevie was tied up with two different laces. This means that the lace used to bind Michael could have been Stevie’s. All this means then, is that the DNA test only proves that Terry Hobbs had been in the same home as Stevie, since he was his Step-Dad. It doesn’t actually connect him to the crime. And even if it were Michael’s shoe lace it would still be the same, since both boys were best friends, and often played in each other’s houses. All that can be really said about the hair is that it’s secondary transfer, and was likely brought to the scene by the victims. The defense also in an attempt to further push Hobbs as a suspect, tried to claim that a hair found on a tree stump belonged to Terry’s friend David Jacoby. This hair would match to over 7% of the population, and be found 2 full weeks after the bodies had been recovered. This meant that the hair could have come from anywhere, and belonged to dozens of people, including investigators, searchers, and family and friends of the victims, who had been to the scene since the crime had occurred.

Next, it should be considered that DNA was a new thing at the time, and evidence wasn’t collected as well back in 1993, as it would be today. Even in this age of the “CSI effect”, expectations are far too high, when it comes to evidence. Today, it can still be difficult to find the offender’s DNA. A prime example would be the Noura Jackson case. Jackson had murdered her mother in 2005. At the scene despite blood being everywhere and the fact that Noura cut herself during the crime, not a single speck of her blood or DNA was located that could prove she killed her mother. There was DNA found, but it didn’t match Noura. There was also a hair, which again didn’t seem to match Noura. There was also no blood in Noura’s car. She had seemingly lucked out and left no real physical evidence to tie her to the crime. What ended up proving that she was the killer, was the fact that she was caught on surveillance tape buying first aid products in the middle of the night, to treat a fresh cut on her hand which was even still bleeding in the video.

http://murderpedia.org/female.J/j/jackson-noura.htm

So, even today, DNA can be tough to link to a suspect.

For years there was confusion over the DNA results in the Boston Strangler case, with a recent DNA test proving that Albert DeSalvo was in fact the Strangler, where as a past DNA test had concluded that he wasn’t the Strangler.

This is from an old article on the case.

Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 23:23 GMT
DNA doubts over Boston Strangler
A forensic investigation has cast doubts over whether the man who confessed to being the Boston Strangler actually was the infamous 1960s serial killer, and raised the possibility that the real murderer could still at large.

DNA evidence found on one of the 11 women killed by the Boston Strangler does not match that of Albert DeSalvo, who had confessed to murdering the women between 1962 and 1964.

James Starrs, professor of forensic science at George Washington University, told a news conference that DNA evidence could not associate DeSalvo with the murder of 19-year-old Mary Sullivan – believed to be the Boston Strangler’s last victim.

DeSalvo said he was the killer while serving a life sentence on unrelated crimes. He later recanted, but was knifed to death in 1973 before any charges could be brought.

Sullivan’s body was exhumed last year and DeSalvo’s a few weeks ago as part of the efforts by both their families to find out who was responsible for the murders.

The women were all sexually assaulted before being strangled.

Professor Starrs said an examination of a semen-like substance on her body did not match DeSalvo’s DNA.

“I’m not saying it exonerates Albert DeSalvo but it’s strongly indicative of the fact that he was not the rape-murderer of Mary Sullivan,” Professor Starrs said.

Mary Sullivan’s nephew, Casey Sherman, asked Professor Starrs to investigate the case, after learning of his involvement in other high-profile identification cases like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, and the outlaw Jesse James.

“If DeSalvo didn’t kill Mary Sullivan, which he confessed to, he didn’t kill any of these women. And the real killers of these women…are still out there and they need to be brought to justice, ” Mr Sherman said.

The latest development may force the police to reopen one of America’s grizzliest crime chapters.

The killer of DeSalvo himself was never caught, and the official aim of the new investigation is to uncover the murderer’s identity.

But DeSalvo’s relatives hope the tests will also clear him of the serial murders.

Money motive

The DeSalvo and Sullivan families believe DeSalvo confessed to the crimes in the hope of securing lucrative book and film deals.

Dan Sharp, the lawyer representing the DeSalvo family, has pointed to large discrepancies between every DeSalvo confession and every crime scene.

Last year, the Massachusetts Attorney-General reopened the investigation into the case.

But the two families have accused the department of stalling in order to avoid examination of how prosecutors came to accept DeSalvo’s confession in the first place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1696552.stm

There would also be two books put out proclaiming that DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler, criticizing both the confessions, and the physical evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Boston-Stranglers-Susan-Kelly/dp/0786014660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376414856&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Boston+Stranglers

http://www.amazon.com/Rose-Mary-Hunt-Boston-Strangler/dp/155553578X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376414898&sr=8-1&keywords=A+Rose+for+Mary

A quote on the matter from the book Body in Question” By Brian Innes.

This excerpt is found on page 211.

“In December 2001, DNA analysis of semen stains from the underwear of the Strangler’s victims raised doubts about the killer’s identity, but there is no question that further similar killings did not occur following DeSalvo’s confinement. Commented one pathologist, “Not finding someone’s DNA at a crime scene doesn’t mean they weren’t there.”

The statement that just because someone’s DNA wasn’t found, didn’t mean they weren’t there, would prove accurate. As a new DNA test who show that DeSalvo was the Strangler.

Now, this is from a more recent article.

“The discrepancy between the 2001 results and today’s announced match might come down to the different samples analyzed by the different labs. “What [the 2013 investigators] have are slides from the crime scene that have semen on them, presumably from the perpetrator,” says Foran, whereas his team examined samples taken from Sullivan’s exhumed corpse. “One thing that confuses me is why they didn’t test those 15 years ago, because they could have. And we certainly did ask for them back then.” Add that to the long, long list of questions about the Boston Strangler case that might never get answered.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/11/albert_desalvo_mary_sullivan_new_evidence_in_boston_strangler_case_contradicts.html

Another article.

DNA tests on the remains of a man who once claimed to be the “Boston Strangler” confirm he killed the woman believed to be the serial killer’s last victim, authorities said Friday.

Lab techs were able to match DNA taken from the body of 19-year-old Mary Sullivan, who was raped and murdered 50 years ago, to that of suspected killer Albert DeSalvo — who many believe was responsible for the slew of deaths that terrorized Boston in the 1960s.

DeSalvo admitted to killing Sullivan and 10 other women in the Boston area between 1962 and 1964, but later recanted. He wound up in Walpole prison on other charges. He was later killed there by another inmate.

Authorities said recently that new technology allowed them to test DNA from the scene of Sullivan’s death and get a match with DeSalvo that excluded 99.9 percent of suspects. Investigators unearthed his remains a week ago to confirm.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dna-confirms-albert-desalvo-link-boston-strangler-killing-mary-sullivan-authorities-article-1.1403536#ixzz2bs6XpDPA

Now over the years the defense team had tried to claim that a hair found at the crime scene from a black man was proof that their clients were innocent. They coupled this together with a sighting of a black man at a Bojangles restaurant. This was a black homeless man who had blood on him, and used the women’s restroom on the night of the murder. The man seemed disoriented and washed up in the bathroom, before leaving.

When this suspect failed, they tried to blame one of the step-parents. First they accused John Mark Byers, the Step-Father of Christopher Byers. Years later during a bitter divorce Pam Hicks, the wife of Terry Hobbs would accuse him of having molested their daughter in order to win custody of her. When this accusation failed she tried to claim that Hobbs was the real killer of her son. These accusations originated from a rumor created by her sisters, after the murders, and seemed based on their dislike for their brother in-law. The defense team soon seized on this, and pointed out how they had a hair that matched to him at the crime scene. In truth however there were countless hairs, probably several just from family members. DNA testing couldn’t even match some of the evidence at the scene to the victims, despite that they had to have been the source of some of it.

With all this background information laid out, let’s get into the documents pertaining to the DNA. Now this link shows the DNA profiles of both the victims and the WM3.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_V_12.jpg

Next you have the document here from Bode, which demonstrates which items had mixtures. The items are the combined ligatures from Stevie (34AB) and Michael’s penile swab (5D).

Now here, It tells where on the charts to look for these mixtures. The locus here is D5S818.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_P_12.jpg

From the information shown here pertaining to the ligature, the results on that locus are 10, 11, and 12. The results are in the fifth column. Now here should only be two numbers, but instead it’s three.

The DNA from the ligatures is compelling, in that possible tissue had been recovered from two other ligatures. This tissue, could have been left by the killer(s), and gotten there as they tied the victims. It was found though that this possible tissue they recovered was far too small, and decomposed to get DNA from.

Michael DeGuglielmo would testify to that fact at trial.

23 Q. What were the results on this Q4 and Q39, the possible
24 tissue from ligatures?
25 A. In those particular items we were not able to detect any
1546

1 DNA from the isolation. When we initially begin a test, the
2 first thing that we do is to go through whatever the material is
3 — if it is tissue or blood — and to remove the DNA from it so
4 we can work with it.
5 Initially we go through and we quantitate that to determine
6 how much DNA is present if it’s there. We were not able to
7 recover and detect any DNA from those two items, and
8 subsequently the testing yielded no results as well.
9 Q. What are the reasons for the inability to get DNA from
10 these possible tissue specimens?
11 A. It can be one of several things. First of all, tissue
12 specimens even more so than bloodstains or seminal stains tend
13 to degrade, in other words, decompose and break down. The
14 reason for that — ah, fluids that make stains dry and when they
15 dry, they are fairly well preserved and they can last for a
16 longer period of time. But tissue or any biological material
17 that is not preserved in some way will break down.
18 Tissue specimens that you’re going to analyze generally are
19 best if they are frozen because that prevents them from
20 decomposing. When that decomposition occurs, the DNA breaks
21 apart and becomes in very small pieces so it is very difficult
22 if not impossible to test it.
23 The other possibility is these were very small samples, and
24 there may have been too little there to have recovered from for
25 the testing anyway.
1547

1 Q. So despite your best efforts you were unable to get any DNA
2 from those items.
3 A. That’s right.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/mdeg.html

So, the killer(s) could have left DNA on the ligatures from handling them. This tissue was found on the bindings of Chris Byers, and Michael Moore, but this DNA was from the bindings on Stevie Branch, and could therefore have been left on his ligature, just as the tissue had been left on the others.

Moving on to the next item.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_P_08.jpg

On the swab the numbers are 9, 12, and 13. The results are found in the second column. Again there should only be two numbers.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_P_09.jpg

Now going back to the chart that lists the DNA profiles of all victims, and the others tested, on the D5S818 locus you have:

Echols is 11,12
Miskelley is 11,12
Baldwin is 9,9
Moore is 9,13
Branch is 10,12
Byers is 11,12

The ligatures’ results for that locus read 10, 11, and 12.

This means for that locus, alleles could be present from Echols, Branch, Misskelley, and, or,  Byers.

From the same ligature, the results for D3S1358 match only Steve out of the six people.

Also from the same ligature, on the locus D13S317, the results read 8 and 11.

Both Branch and Echols have the same results on their known samples for this locus.

On Micheal’s penile swab, the results for the D5S818 locus are 9,12,13 .

Looking at the chart that lists the DNA profiles of all victims and the WM3 as relates to the D5S818 locus it reads as follows:

Echols is 11,12
Misekelley is 11,12
Baldwin is 9,9
Moore is 9,13
Branch is 10,12
Byers is 11,12

All parties have either a 9, 12, or 13 at this locus, so no one can be excluded.

So, as can be seen, the men were not absolutely cleared of this crime by DNA.

They were also further linked to this crime through DNA located on a necklace belonging to Damien Echols. Blood was found on it that matched to Echols, along with blood from either Stevie Branch or Jason Baldwin. The testing at the time couldn’t say for sure if the blood was Stevie’s or Jason’s, and because of this testing all of the blood samples are used up, and impossible to re-run.

This testing is discussed in this deleted scene from Paradise Lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ

Axe

What follows are excerpts from a letter by Barry Scheck.

Michael M. Baden, M.D., director of the Medicological Investigations Unit of the New York State Police, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary indicated that ‘in less than 10% of murders, the criminal leaves DNA evidence behind.'”

“James Christy, director of the Future Explorations Unit of the Department of Defense’s Cyber Crime Unit was quoted as saying that “only about 1% of criminal cases introduce DNA evidence.”

“Nonetheless, there is no rigorous study I know of that establishes whether there is a higher percentage.”

Barry Scheck – Letter to the Commission | Maryland Citizens Against State Executions

http://www.mdcase.org/node/132

Part of an article on DNA in criminal cases.

“At criminal trials, there is always talk about doubt, reasonable doubt. But in recent years, with the rise of DNA technology and other forensic evidence techniques, many Americans have a growing sense of confidence, if not certainty, that we’re locking up the guilty and freeing the innocent. The backbone of modern justice, it seems, is not a judge in a long, black robe, presiding over a courtroom, but a forensic analyst in a crisp, white coat, laboring over a microscope. In science we trust.

A 2006 survey of more than 1,000 Michigan jurors found that nearly half of the jurors expected to see some sort of scientific evidence in every criminal trial. Nearly 75 percent expected to see scientific evidence presented in murder trials. And still another study, published just this year, found that people trusted such evidence almost blindly. In this study, a random sample of 1,201 potential jurors in California said they considered scientific evidence, like DNA and fingerprints, to be far more reliable than the testimony of police officers, eyewitnesses, or even the victims themselves.

Prosecutors call it the CSI effect, suggesting that fictional television shows, like the long-running “CSI,” helped convince science-wary Americans to believe in the power of forensics. But the facts haven’t hurt, either. At trial, when possible, prosecutors are always keen on

calling forensic experts to testify — even when no forensic evidence has been found. Failure to do so, prosecutors say, would almost surely sink their chances of winning a conviction.

But does forensic evidence really matter as much as we believe? New research suggests no, arguing that we have overrated the role that it plays in the arrest and prosecution of American criminals.

A study, reviewing 400 murder cases in five jurisdictions, found that the presence of forensic evidence had very little impact on whether an arrest would be made, charges would be filed, or a conviction would be handed down in court.

A mere 13.5 percent of the murder cases reviewed actually had physical evidence that linked the suspect to the crime scene or victim. The conviction rate in those cases was only slightly higher than the rate among all other cases in the sample. And for the most part, the hard, scientific evidence celebrated by crime dramas simply did not surface. According to the research, investigators found some kind of biological evidence 38 percent of the time, latent fingerprints 28 percent of the time, and DNA in just 4.5 percent of homicides.”

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/11/07/the_case_against_evidence/

In a letter from Bode Laboratories, they identify these two locations as possible DNA mixtures. It also mentions a allele, that doesn’t match either the victims or the convicted found on Stevie’s genitals. It’s unknown how this got there, or it’s significance. One could suggest it could have gotten there from moving or handling the bodies, as they were transported from the ditch and crime scene by investigators.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/bode_letter.jpg

Both of the mixtures mentioned in this letter are in locations, that it would be expected DNA from the WM3 to be located. The DNA was located on Stevie’s ligatures, and on Michael Moore’s genitals. In the past, there had even been possible tissue pulled from the other ligatures, but the tissue had likely decayed, making it unusable. With that in mind though a mixture at this location, could suggest this was the killer(s) DNA. While not major DNA, it doesn’t exclude the WM3 as having contributed it. And this DNA could very likely be from whoever tied the ligatures.

What this all means is that the men convicted of this crime cannot be claimed to be proven innocent through DNA, due to the DNA evidence recovered from the victims does not exclude them. Blood located on a necklace belonging to Echols may also have been from one of the victims, seeming to further implicate the men convicted. And when one considers that DNA is only found in a small percentage of murders, despite a widespread notion that the offender should always leave behind DNA, it seems to further weaken the claim that DNA proved them innocent.

The Confessions of Jessie Misskelley

jm_mug
(Misskelley’s mugshot)

Through-out the course of the case, Jessie Misskelley would make numerous confessions implicating both himself and his friends in the crime. Prior to making his original statement Jessie would even display odd behavior suggesting his guilt.

Two of these are the odd, yet corroborated statements below.

This first one is a statement by a man named Jesse Hurst. Hurst would have a conversation with Damien Echols while the two were in jail together. The statement itself is confusing, as Hurst mixes up the names Jason and Jessie. While he does confuse the names, it seems obvious from the context of the conversation that he’s referring to Jessie Misskelley. Hurst also seems to confuse when the conversation took place. He says he was told it was two weeks before the crime, but there was no murders yet, so that wouldn’t exactly make sense. More likely it would be two weeks after.

RIDGE: ONE THING WAS MENTION EARLIER THAT JASON AND DAMIEN HAD, A CONVERSATION

JESSE: YEAH (YES)

RIDGE: WHEN WAS THAT CONVERSATION SUPPOSE TO OF HAVE TAKEN PLACE

JESSE: HE SAID TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDERS

RIDGE: OKAY, WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION?

JESSE: HE SAID THAT JASON TOLD HIM THAT IF THE POLICE COME BY HIS HOUSE ASKING WHO DID IT, HE WAS GOING TO ADMIT TO IT AND SAY YEAH I DID IT.

RIDGE: OKAY, NOW THIS IS TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE MURDERS, BEFORE THE MURDERS, SO JASON WAS TELLING DAMIEN HE WAS GOING TO DO IT?

JESSE: YEAH (YES) AND DAMIEN TOLD ME THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS JUST JOKING, HE DIDN’T THINK HE WAS SERIOUS

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jeshur.html

So, according to this Jessie had told Damien that he was going to confess to the crimes if the police ever talked to him. However Damien claims Jessie was simply joking.

Vickie Hutcheson would also say a similar thing to Defense investigator Ron Lax.

This was taken from the book The Blood of Innocents.

From page 410 of the book.

“In the interview with Lax and Stidham, Hutcheson said Misskelley had joked before his arrest that he would tell police he committed the murders if he was ever questioned. Hutcheson said she’s sure this happened because “I was in my right set of mind that day.”

“I about died’ when Misskelley made his joke, Hutcheson said. “Because he goes, ‘I’ll just tell them I did it.” And I said, ‘No you wouldn’t. You stupid? what’s wrong with you, boy?’ And he started busting out laughing and he was like, ‘It was a joke.'”

So in the weeks after the murders Jessie had possibly stated that he was going to confess.

Both Hutcheson and Echols used this to try and suggest that it’s proof Jessie made up the confessions, but why would he do that if he was innocent? Why tell people you’re gonna confess, and then confess to it if you had nothing to do with it? The defense has always maintained that Jessie was some how coerced, but this would seem to suggest otherwise.

Jessie would also display strange crying fits and nightmares according to Lee Rush, his father’s then girlfriend.

LeeRush

(Photo of Rush from a scene in Paradise Lost, where she seems concerned that Jessie may be guilty.)

OFFICER’S FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

On Thursday night on June 3, 1993 at approximately 8:30 or 9 p.m., I detective Charlie Dabbs, Detective Tony Anderson from the West Memphis Police Department and Sergeant Tankersley with the Crittenden County Sheriff’s Office, after obtaining a Consent To Search form signed by Jessie Misskelley, escorted Jessie Misskelley and his wife to their residence.
We went in and secured the residence until the search and evidence team arrived. While sitting in their living room for approximately two hours, and during conversation Mr. and Mrs. Misskelley talked about different incidents. During the conversation, Mrs. Misskelley got to talking about how Jessie Jr. was waking her up at night crying and having nightmares. Every time she went into his room he would be crying hysterically and he would tell her it was because his girlfriend was moving away. She told us it happened a number of times, and that she could not believe his girlfriends’ moving would cause that kind of hysterical behavior, but that little Jessie had been acting strange.

Det. Charlie Dabbs

http://callahan.8k.com/images/report_06-07-93.jpg

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/rush_l_tankersley.jpg

“At one point Misskelly’ wife stated that one night “Little Jessie” awoke her he was crying and screaming. She asked him the next date what was wrong and he stated that his girlfriend had him upset, as she was suppose to be moving to Florida.”

So here we have Jessie telling people he knew that he was gonna confess, and having strange crying fits and nightmares all around this exact time.

On one occasion Jessie would also try to suggest someone named Robert Burch was the real killer. Burch at the time was one of several individuals rumored by local teens to be the person responsible for the murders.

“The last time we had a conversation was around May 27th & someone was having a party & me and my boyfriend & his nephew were outside & we talked to Jessie & then Robert Burch wanted to fight my boyfriend’s nephew & Jessie went to talk to Robert, & someone in the crowd said that they think Robert killed the 3 boys & Jessie just agreed.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/feliciaw_statement.html

The statement against Burch, might mean nothing, but it is interesting that Misskelley would eventually confess to this crime.

Jessie had also possibly told his friend Buddy Lucas that he was some how involved in the murders, even giving him a pair of shoes that appeared to have blood on them at the time.

“ON 010394, I DETECTIVE B. RIDGE WENT TO THE RESIDENCE OF AMY AND EDDIE WILSON AT RT 1 BOX 192 IN HETH, ARKANSAS. I HAD BEEN TOLD THAT BUDDY LUCAS HAD TOLD THEM ABOUT SOME SHOES THAT HE RECEIVED FROM JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. THAT HAD BLOOD ON THEM.

THE WILSONS REPORTED THAT BUDDY LUCAS HAD STAYED WITH THEM FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE HOMICIDE HAD OCCURRED AND THAT HE WAS WORKING IN EARLE. THEY STATED THAT SOMEONE WHERE HE WAS WORKING TOLD THEM OF HOW BUDDY HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE HOMICIDE AND THAT BUDDY WAS TALKING LIKE HE KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT THE HOMICIDES. EDDIE STATED THAT HE CONFRONTED BUDDY ABOUT WHAT HE KNEW OF THE HOMICIDES AND ASKED IF HE WERE INVOLVED IN THE HOMICIDES. BUDDY TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE HOMICIDES BUT THAT HE AND BUDDY HAD AT SOME TIME TRADED SHOES FOR SOME REASON AND THAT WHEN BUDDY RETURNED THE SHOES TO HIM AFTER THE HOMICIDE THAT HE SAW THAT THEY HAD BLOOD ON THEM.

THE WILSONS HAD NO FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOMICIDE AND DIDN’T KNOW WHAT BECAME OF THE SHOES. THEY FURTHER STATED THAT THEY NEVER SAW THE SHOES.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/amy_eddie_wilson_report.html

b_lucas_photo

(A photo of Lucas.)

Buddy would give this statement.

RIDGE – OKAY, SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HE TELLS YOU HE HAS TO TELL YOU SOMETHING?

LUCAS – SO WE SIT THERE, SIT THERE, AND I SAID, HE SAID MAN ME JASON AND DAMIEN WE WENT WALKING LAST NIGHT IN THE TOWN OF WEST MEMPHIS, I SAID WHY DIDN’T YOU ALL COME BY AND GET ME? WE WILL WE UH, WE WERE IN A HURRY AND EVERYTHING GO UP THERE AND COME BACK HOME. I SAID ALRIGHT I UNDERSTAND (INAUDIBLE) NOW SINCE I FOUND OUT I’M KINDA GLAD HE DIDN’T COME BY AND GET ME

RIDGE – OKAY, WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE DO?

LUCAS – WE…. HE TOLD ME THAT UH, THAT HE GOT IN A FIGHT, THAT’S WHAT HE TOLD ME AT FIRST

RIDGE – OKAY

LUCAS – I SAID DAMIEN AND JASON THEY HELPED YOU? HE SAID UM-YEA AND EVERYTHING SO I SAID WELL DID YOU ALL HURT ANYBODY? AND HE SAID YEA, I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS THOSE 8 YEAR OLD KIDS OR ANYTHING, SO I TURN AROUND AND COME TO FOUND OUT THAT JASON HE WAS WITH JASON AND DAMIEN WHEN THEY SACRIFICED THEM LITTLE KIDS. I WAS COME AND TELL YOU ALL

RIDGE – OKAY

LUCAS – AND HE SAID NO I’LL DO IT

RIDGE – SO HE TELLS YOU HE WILL COME TO THE POLICE

LUCAS: UH-HUH, AND ALRIGHT THAT WEEKEND I CAME BACK OVER AT MY MOM’S AND EVERYTHING

RIDGE – UH-HUH

LUCAS – I READ ABOUT IT IN THE PAPER AND EVERYTHING AND COME TO FOUND OUT HE DID FRONT HIS SELF THAT HE DID DO IT CAUSE HE TOLD ME HE WOULD

RIDGE – OKAY

LUCAS – AND EVERYTHING

RIDGE – DID YOU CALL HIM?

LUCAS – UH?

RIDGE – WHEN YOU READ THING IN THE PAPER DID YOU CALL JESSIE OR TALK TO HIM AGAIN?

LUCAS – UH-UH, CAUSE HE WAS ALREADY LOCKED UP WHEN I HEARD ABOUT IT, IN THE PAPER

RIDGE – OKAY

LUCAS – AND EVERYTHING, CAUSE IT HAD THEIR PICTURE ON THE FRONT PAGE

RIDGE – OKAY, THURSDAY MORNING AFTER THIS WEDNESDAY YOU WENT TO HIS HOUSE

LUCAS – UH-HUH

RIDGE – HE TELLS YOU HE’S IN SOME TROUBLE?

LUCAS – UH-HUH

RIDGE – AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS IN TROUBLE OVER?

LUCAS – THAT HE REALLY, HE SAID UM, WE HURT, UH…. UH WE HURT A COUPLE OF BOYS, THAT JASON AND DAMIEN KILLED

RIDGE – OKAY

LUCAS – COUPLE, I SAID WAS YOU INVOLVED? HE SAID YEA, I SAID WHAT DID YOU DO? I FINALLY GOT IT TALKED OUT OF HIM WHAT DID HE DO, HE SAID I HIT UH, A COUPLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD

RIDGE – OKAY, AND

LUCAS – AND EVERYTHING TO KEEP THEM FROM RUNNING AND EVERYTHING

RIDGE – AND THAT’S WHAT HE TOLD YOU?

LUCAS – YES SIR

RIDGE – AND THIS IS ON THURSDAY MORNING?

LUCAS – UH-HUH

RIDGE – OKAY.

LUCAS – THE TWO SHOES HE GAVE ME, AND EVERYTHING

RIDGE – DID HE GIVE YOU SOME SHOES ON THAT THURSDAY MORNING?

LUCAS – UH-HUH

RIDGE – OKAY, AND DESCRIBE TO ME HOW HE GAVE YOU THOSE SHOES?

LUCAS – HE… HE PICKED UP AND STARTED TO HAND THEM TO ME. ALL THE SUDDENLY HE DROPPED THEM, AND BROKE OUT IN SWEAT, CRYING EVERYTHING ELSE, HE SAID MAN TAKE THOSE SHOES I DON’T WANT TO SEE THEM NO MORE, I SAID YOUR SURE? AND EVERYTHING, I DON’T REMEMBER SEEING THOSE SHOES AT HIS HOUSE, HE SAID, I SAID ARE THEY YOURS? HE SAID YEA. SO I SAID, HE SAID TAKE THEM I DON;T WANT TO SEE THEM NO MORE, I SAID ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT ME TO TAKE THEM? AND HE SAID YEA, AND EVERYTHING SO THERE WASN’T NOTHING ON THE SHOES AND EVERYTHING SO TURN AROUND HE GOING, I GOT THE SHOES I WENT HOME AND EVERYTHING

RIDGE – AFTER YOU GOT THE SHOES DID HE SAY, WHAT DID HE SAY EXACTLY TO YOU ABOUT THOSE SHOES?

LUCAS – THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO SEE THEM ANYMORE AND

RIDGE – OKAY

LUCAS – AND EVERYTHING HE DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM SHOES

RIDGE – THAT’S WHAT HE TOLD YOU?

LUCAS – UH-HUH

RIDGE – OKAY, DO YOU HAVE THOSE SHOES?

LUCAS – THERE UP THERE WHERE I’M LIVING AT NOW, I’LL GIVE THEM TO YOU AS SOON AS I GET THERE

The police would even confiscate the shoes from Lucas.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/b_lucas/lucas_b_shoes.jpg

A girl named Kim Floresca would also claim that Jessie confessed to her.

“Local teens often travel to the Stonehenge site at night to socialize and marvel at its legend and chilling atmosphere.

“Sometimes people think it’s funny trying to scare other people,” said Kim Floresca, 15, who just completed 10th grade at Marion High School. “It’s supposed to be a place where cults go out, and they’re supposed to sacrifice virgins and animals and stuff.”

Floresca said she once went to the Stonehenge site about two years ago with a group of teens who included Misskelley. The night was just a typical night, she said, and Misskelley did nothing out of the ordinary.

Floresca said she never heard of the other two suspects visiting the site.

Floresca said Misskelley told her and other students the day before he was arrested that he participated in the killings.

A group of students were driving last Wednesday after school to a friend’s house to go swimming when Misskelley began telling his bizarre tale, she said.

“He was saying he hit the little boy and the little boy ran off and he was taking him back to where Damien and the other boy were,” she said. According to Misskelley’s story, Echols had already killed the two other boys, she said.

Floresca said she didn’t believe Misskelley at the time.”

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2832

Keeping things in perspective here, Jessie talked to a number of people, telling them that he was either gonna confess or that he was responsible for the crime itself. Of these people you possibly even had Echols himself saying Jessie was gonna confess.

He also was having nightmares and crying fits that some would view as possible signs of guilt. Why would you show signs of remorse for a crime you never committed?

Now, here we shall get into the actual confessions and the events surrounding them.

First we should dispel a few myths about these statements.

First off lets look at a screen cap from Paradise Lost.

confession

A popular claim amongst supporters of the WM3 is that Jessie was mildly retarded. Often they site that he had an IQ of 72. This is not true though. Jessie’s own expert stated that he had taken several IQ tests. One of these tests would even show that his IQ was around 88. His own expert concluded that he might have purposely been trying to get a low score in order to help his case. The reason he’d want to score low could have been for numerous reasons, all of which would help him out. First off his defense could say the cops bullied this poor retarded kid into confessing, and gain sympathy. Another reason being that it might help avoid the death penalty. It also would help him create doubt when it came to his many confessions.

Dan Stidham would even suggest that it would help his defense out in the documentary Paradise Lost.

DanStidham

(Photo of Stidham making a statement to Jessie regarding his IQ.)

Here’s what his defense expert stated in court.

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?

WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

DAVIS: Now, you had in your file some past tests that had been conducted on Jessie to determine IQ, did you not?

WILKINS: Yes I did.

DAVIS: Ok. And in ’89 did you have a test, an IQ test that was performed on him to determine what his functioning was at that point?

WILKINS: Uh, let me—yes I did. I need to find the records to find exactly what—

DAVIS: Sure, Doctor, go ahead.

WILKINS: I can’t remember (unintelligible). Yes, I’m sorry. Ok, yes.

DAVIS: Ok, and what was that performance IQ in 1989?

WILKINS: 1989, uh, I’m sorry, it’s not in this report. I’ll have to dig out all the old evidence, I thought it was in this report and it’s not.

DAVIS: Sure, I understand.

WILKINS: In, uh, which year are we talking about now?

DAVIS: 1989.

WILKINS: 1989 we had a performance of 84 and a verbal of 68 and a full-scale of 74.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?

WILKINS: 88.

DAVIS: Ok, and what was his full-scale IQ at that time?

WILKINS: 73.

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?

WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.

DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?

WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.

DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.

WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.

DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?

WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?

WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.

DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?

WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.

DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.

WILKINS: Uh, very high.

DAVIS: Very high?

WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.

DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?

WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.

DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?

WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.

DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?

WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.

DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And do you know whether he talked with his lawyers that he was gonna take those tests?

WILKINS: Not that I know of. I don’t know.

DAVIS: Ok. Well, in your report you said that because of that elevation in that T scale—that 83 score, because of that mild elevation that gave you some concern about malingering?

WILKINS: Yes.

So, you see there that Jessie’s IQ was in the 80’s? That makes him dumb, but certainly not retarded or even mildly retarded for that matter. Gary Ridgway the notorious Green River killer had an IQ in the 80’s and that certainly doesn’t make him retarded now does it? So the whole claim that Misskelley’s IQ was 72 should be viewed skeptically in light of these facts.

Another claim created to cast doubt on his confession was the defense’s insistence that Jessie was interrogated for 12 hours.

This is an out right lie created by the defense and parroted ad-naseum by the media and supporters in this case.

The police kept track of how long everything happened, and according to this document he was in total questioned 4 1/2 hours. Not 12.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.htm

#006048-

8:00 AM SQUAD MEETING/DISCUSSED ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR IN REFERENCE TO HIS BEING A MEMBER OF CULT THAT DAMIEN ECHOLS AND JASON BALDWIN ARE SAID TO BE MEMBERS OF. CHECK POSSIBILITY OF HIS BEING A WITNESS TO HOMICIDE OR ANY STATEMENTS HE MAY HAVE OVERHEARD FROM DAMIEN OR ANYONE CONCERNING THE HOMICIDE.

9:13 AM DETECTIVE SGT. MIKE ALLEN CHECKED INTO SERVICE

DETECTIVE ALLEN WENT TO THE RESIDENCE OF JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE CONTACT. CONTACTED THE FEMALE WHO WAS AT THE RESIDENCE WHO INFORMED THAT JESSIE JR. WAS NOT AT THE RESIDENCE. SHE INFORMED ALLEN THAT HE COULD GO TO JIM’S DIESEL REPAIR AND MEET WITH JESSIE MISSKELLEY SR.

9:45 AM ALLEN WENT TO JIM’S REPAIR AND MET WITH JESSIE SR. WHO WENT AND PICKED UP JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. THEN WENT WITH DETECTIVE ALLEN TO THE WEST MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

10:00 AM DETECTIVE SGT. ALLEN FILLED OUT THE SUBJECT DESCRIPTION FORM AND THE INTERVIEW BEGAN WITH THE QUESTIONS OR ANY KNOWLEDGE HE HAD OF THE HOMICIDE AND HIS WHEREABOUTS ON THE DAY OF THE HOMICIDE.

11:00 AM DETECTIVE ALLEN READ JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. HIS RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE MIRANDA RULE WITH DETECTIVE RIDGE BEING A WITNESS TO THE PROCEDURE. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR JESSIE MISSKELLEY SR. TO SIGN A CONSENT TO ALLOW JESSIE JR. TO SUBMIT TO A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.

11:15 AM SGT. ALLEN WENT WITH JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. TO FIND HIS FATHER TO OBTAIN A CONSENT TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. SGT. ALLEN HAD JESSIE RIDING AS A UNSECURED PASSENGER IN THE FRONT SEAT AT WHICH TIME HE MET JESSIE AT OR NEAR MISSOURI STREET AND SHOPPINGWAY. SGT. ALLEN MET WITH JESSIE MISSKELLEY SR. AT CHIEF’S AUTO PARTS WHERE HE EXPLAINED THE UPCOMING PROCEDURE AND OBTAINED A WRITTEN CONSENT FOR JESSIE MISSKELLEY TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.

11:30 AM JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. WAS READ HIS RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE MIRANDA RULE BY BILL DURHAM PRIOR TO HIS ADMINISTERING A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.

# 006047

11:55 AM FIRST CHART WAS COMPLETED DURING POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.

12:03 PM SECOND CHART COMPLETED DURING POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION

12:11 PM THIRD CHART COMPLETED DURING POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. AFTER THE TEST ABOUT 15 MINUTES WERE SPENT IN THE POST TEST INTERVIEW.

12:30 PM BILL DURHAM ADVISED DETECTIVE RIDGE, INSPECTOR GITCHELL, AND SGT. MIKE ALLEN THAT JESSIE MISSKELLEY WAS BEING DECEPTIVE IN HIS RESPONSES TO THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.

12:40 PM IT WAS DECIDED THAT DETECTIVE RIDGE AND INSPECTOR GITCHELL WOULD CONTINUE THE INTERVIEW.

2:20 PM JESSIE STATES TO INSPECTOR GITCHELL THAT HE WAS PRESENT WHEN THE THREE BOYS WERE KILLED. PREPARATIONS WERE BEGUN TO TAPE THE REST OF THE INTERROGATION WHEN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT JESSIE WAS A DIRECT WITNESS OR A PARTICIPANT OF THE HOMICIDE.

2:44 PM THE TAPED CONFESSION BEGAN WITH JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. BEING QUESTIONED BY DETECTIVE RIDGE AND INSPECTOR GITCHELL.

3:18 PM THE TAPED CONFESSION WAS COMPLETED. WORK WAS STARTED IN REFERENCE TO OBTAINING SEARCH WARRANTS AND ARREST WARRANTS FOR THE PERSONS NAMED AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE HOMICIDE.

3:22 PM JESSIE JR. OFFERED FOOD WHICH HE DECLINED AND WAS GIVEN TWO CIGARETTES.

[The word “Incorrect” is written in margin] 3:45PM INSPECTOR GITCHELL CONDUCTED A SECOND INTERVIEW WITH JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. TO CLEAR UP SOME DISCREPANCIES CONCERNING TIME AND EVENTS IN THE FIRST INTERVIEW.

5:05 PM JESSIE JR. ASKED IF HE WANTED ANY FOOD TO EAT.

6:15 PM JESSIE JR WAS FED.

6:30 PM JESSIE JR. WAS ASKED IF HE WANT TO RELIEVE HIMSELF.

9:06 PM RIDGE, GITCHELL, FOGLEMAN PRESENT FOR A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WITH JUDGE P. RAINEY PRESIDING.

9:14 PM TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN CONCERNING THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANTS AND ARREST WARRANTS FOR THOSE INVOLVED IN THE HOMICIDE.

The defense would also try to suggest that Jessie got details wrong to further dismiss the confession.

Another misconception. Everyone always likes to bring up the fact that Jessie said that the victims were tied up with rope as proof, but guess what? Even if Jessie were innocent, he should have said shoe laces. Why’s that you might ask? Two reasons.

The first being that Jessie supposedly already knew that they were tied up with shoe laces according to this courtroom statement. This would come out at his trial.

BY STIDHAM:

Q: You tell the jury what you told Mr. Misskelley?

A: Yes, I told him that–that one of the boys were beaten and caserated.

Q: You told him that one of the boys had been castrated?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What else did you tell him?

A: Uh…

Q: Did you tell him anything else?

A: Yes, that they, that–that they was tied with the shoestrings.

Q: Where did you get this information, Mr. Johnson?

A: From the–heard it from the members of the Search and Rescue.

Q: Did you tell Mr. Misskelley anything else?

A: I can’t recall.

STIDHAM: May I have a moment, your Honor? (PAUSE) Pass the witness, your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY DAVIS:

Q: Now, as I understand it, on May 5th, you were at a Search and Rescue meeting?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You don’t know where Jessie Misskelley was on May 5th, do you?

A: No, sir.

Q: And you don’t know who may have gone wrestling and who didn’t, correct?

A: Sir?

Q: You don’t know who went wrestling and who didn’t —

A: — No, sir.

Q: — to your own knowledge?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now, you indicated that you gave some information regarding the injuries to the children, to who?

A: Sir?

Q: You gave some information regarding the injuries to the children to who?

A: Jessie.

Q: Who else did you tell about this?

A: Nobody, I mean…

THE COURT: By “Jessie,” you talking about Jessie Senior or Jessie Junior?

A: (NO RESPONSE)

Q: Junior or senior?

A: What–what are you asking?

Q: Okay. You indicated that you gave some information to Jessie Misskelley. Is that Jessie Misskelley Jr. or Senior?

A: Junior.

Q: Okay. And did you tell anybody else that information?

A: Well, we was–I mean talking about it–I mean ev–who was around.

Q: Did you talk about it other places, to other people?

A: Oh, no, sir. I mean…

Q: Nobod–You wouldn’t have told anybody else about that, right?

A: I mean, ev–whoever who was standing there. I mean…

Q: Did you talk about it on other occasions?

A: No, sir. I can’t recall. I mean it was in the papers and everything. I mean…

Q: Okay. So, you basically told him what was in the paper?

A: And what I heard at the Search and Rescue because I wasn’t at the scene.

Q: Okay. So, you weren’t at the scene and you didn’t have any first-hand knowledge, is that correct?

A: No, sir.

Q: Okay. And so, basically what you were relating to him was the same stuff you had been reading in the paper.

A: Right and what I was told, I mean, what I had heard.

Q: And you didn’t know which one or if all of the boys had had their genitals removed, right?

A: Right.

Q: Okay. And you certainly didn’t know which one had, correct?

A: Right.

Q: You certainly didn’t tell Jessie that, did you?

A: No, sir.

Q: Okay. So, if Jessie knew which one had had that occurred to him, he wouldn’t have gotten that information from you, true?

A: Right.

Q: I’d like to show you what is a Crittenden County Search and Rescue attendance record. (HANDING) Is that–see your brother’s name, there?

A: (EXAMINING) My brother’s?

Q: Or your name? I’m sorry.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Okay. And how many times a week does that reflect that you attend those meetings?

A: The first–the first and third Wednesday of every month.

Q: Okay. So, you’ve been attending those meetings two times a month, for how long?

A: I was–January the 20th wa–was a year.

Q: Okay.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, did you say the first and the third Wednesday?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY DAVIS:

Q: Do you recall–Mr. Johnson, do you recall, you told Jessie about some of this general information that you’d learned in the paper, did you…

STIDHAM: [interrupting] Your Honor, that’s not what the witness testified to.

Q: You told him some general information about the injury. Remember anything else you told him about any injuries?

A: No, sir.

Q: Okay. So, the extent of what you would have said would have been something to do with some–with castration-type injuries, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Anything else that you would told him?

A: No, sir.

Q: Okay. Didn’t mention to him about injuries to the ears, anything like that?

A: No, sir.

Q: Didn’t mention to him anything about signs or injuries or indications of sexual abuse?

A: No, sir. I can’t recall.

Q: No further questions, your Honor.

STIDHAM: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, you’re free to go. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

So Jessie knew that the victims were tied up with shoe laces then, but told the police they were tied up with rope. Jessie would later make statements that he said rope in order to confuse the police in an attempt to get off.

Jessie would make a statement in the back of a cop car after his conviction for the crime, that he had purposely lied about the rope, and even the time of the murders, because he didn’t know if the police were lying to him about certain things.

Here’s a photo of Jessie just prior to making this statement.

Jessie3

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

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html

Then Jessie would say this to his own lawyer after confessing to him on Feb. 8 1994.

STIDHAM: What did they tie them with?

MISSKELLEY: Shoe string.

STIDHAM: Why did you tell the officers it was a brown rope?

MISSKELLEY: I made it up.

STIDHAM: Why?

MISSKELLEY: (silent)

STIDHAM: You don’t know why?

(Page 58)

MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

Now second if the police had coerced him, his confession should have been perfect. He would have told the police he had actually participated in killing the boys, but in his confession statements prior to his trial he’d only admit to having seen his friends murder the boys, and to catching one of them and bringing them back so his friends could kill him. The reason for this was plain and simple. He was trying to throw his friends under the bus and avoid getting in trouble, so he even lied in his original confessions to the police and his lawyer.

*A37 MISSKELLEY: And started doing the same thing, then the other one took off, Michael uh Moore took off running, so I chased him and grabbed him and held him, til they got there and then I left.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay. Alright, when you get the boys back together, where you at from the creek?
*A38 MISSKELLEY: I was up there by the uh Service Road
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Up by the Service Road?
*A39 MISSKELLEY: (The transcript here says yes. I could not find a response.)
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, now when this, when he hits the first boy, where are they at when he, when he hits him, are you in the woods, you’re on the side of big bayou, you’re out in the field, where you at?
*A40 MISSKELLEY: I was in the woods.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: In the woods. Okay, you’ve been down there in those woods before.
*A41 MISSKELLEY: Yes, I have.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Can you describe to me what in those woods, what’s the location where you were?
*A42 MISSKELLEY: Uh,
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Is there a path that you go down?
*A43 MISSKELLEY: Uh, down a little path
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, where does that path go to?
*A44 MISSKELLEY: It leads out there close to the uh field, close to the interstate.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay
*A45 MISSKELLEY: That’s where I was at.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright.
*A46 MISSKELLEY: I was close by the interstate.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: When he hits the first boy and then Jason hits another boy, and one takes off running,
*A47 MISSKELLEY: And the other takes. . .
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Where does he run to?
*A48 MISSKELLEY: That one, he runs out, going out the, out the park and I chased him and grabbed him and brought him back.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Which way does he go, I mean, does he go on back towards where the houses are
*A49 MISSKELLEY: He goes on back. . .
DETECTIVE RIDGE: He’s going to Blue Beacon, is he going out towards the fields,
*A50 MISSKELLEY: He’s going. . .
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Where’s he running to?
*A51 MISSKELLEY: Towards the houses.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Towards the houses?
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Where the pipe is that goes across the water?
*A52 MISSKELLEY: Yeah, he’s running out there and I caught him and brought him back, and then I took off.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, when you came back a little bit later, and all three boys are tied?
*A53 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Is that right?
*A54 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm, and then I took off and run home.

Jessie would make statements like that where he’d just claim to have left, but then agree that more happened, which he couldn’t have possibly known about unless he hadn’t left. By the end of his first confession you can even see it dawning on him that he had hung himself. He then tries to make up facts to sound like he wasn’t involved at the end of the confession statements.

In this example Jessie now claims Chris Byers was choked to death after he had already mentioned him being killed from castration.

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Now, you’re pointing to the Byers boy again?
*A207 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: How was he actually killed?
*A208 MISSKELLEY: He did, he choked him real bad like.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Choked him? Okay, what was he choking him with?
*A209 MISSKELLEY: His hands, like a, like a stick, he had a big old stick, and he’s kind of holding it over his neck.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, so he was choking him to the point where he actually went unconscious, so at that point, you felt like he was dead?
*A210 MISSKELLEY: Yeah

In this part when the police come back and questioned him a second time, he mentions the brown rope.

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Ok, and what did they use to tie them up?
*B31 MISSKELLEY: A rope.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Ok. What color was the rope?
*B32 MISSKELLEY: Brown.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june2.html

Now he should have said shoe laces, instead of rope. Why would the police purposely fuck up their own coercion? The answer? He wasn’t coerced. Jessie was simply trying to lie his way out of trouble.

Another claim being that he got the time of day wrong though it’s already been mentioned that Jessie stated that he again purposely tried to lie about the time of the murders along with the shoe laces information.

Q: Mr. Ofshe testified that the fact that this incident happened at night was not mentioned until page eighteen when Detective Ridge said, “The night you were in these woods.” Was the fact that this happened at night mentioned prior to page eighteen in the transcript?

A: Yes, sir. Mr. Ofshe’s remark was incorrect, in so much as on page twelve of the transcript, ah, Jessie states: “Well, after all this stuff happened that night.” That’s the first time that ‘night’ is mentioned by Jessie himself.

Q: All right. Had — had you or Detective Ridge mentioned ‘night’ prior to that?

A: No, sir.

Q: Mr. ofshe also testified in regard to the follow-up tape, that nowhere in the record does Jessie say seven or eight until you mentioned seven or eight. Where did you get seven or eight?

A: I — I derived that from uh, there again, back on page twelve of the transcript. Uh, Jessie states: “Then they called me at nine o’clock that night.”

Q: All right.

A: And then you refer to page twenty-four of that same transcript, and then there’s a mention of “How long after you got home you received the phone call?” And Jessie responds: “An hour.”

Q: All right.

A: So that’s where I deducted the — the time frame.

So Jessie jumped around with the time, but he did in fact say that the murder happened around night time. This is just further evidence of Jessie’s deceptions. Jessie would even be deceptive in an interview with the defense’s false confession expert.

He’d give this explanation to him.

OFSHE: Okay. That’s fine, if you can’t remember, you can’t remember. You know, the next thing that is in here, and they seem to think this is real important, is Jessie
stated that he saw pictures of the boys killed during a meeting. Let’s take that in two parts. Did you ever tell that you had seen pictures of the boys who were killed?

MISSKELLEY: I told them I seen pictures of them, but I –

OFSHE: Had you gotten newspapers with photographs?

MISSKELLEY: I hadn’t ever seen the boys period.

OFSHE: Right. [13:09]

MISSKELLEY: And I – I told them that I’d seen them but they’s on uh, on some little bikes around some houses. I hadn’t ever seen them before.

OFSHE: Okay, but he was talking about pictures of the boys during a meeting. Do you remember telling them about going to cult meetings?

MISSKELLEY: That’s – that’s when I – after Ridge said he done seen me, you know, that he seen me at some cult meetings, and after he kept on and kept on, then I finally
said “Okay, I was at a cult meeting.” And I told him that, uh, I’d seen pictures of them.

OFSHE: How did seeing picture come up? Do you remember that?

(Page 43)

MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating) I had just said seen pictures. I ain’t never seen the boys. Not even on TV, I ain’t never seen them.

OFSHE: Do you remember if anybody suggested to you that you had seen pictures of them or maybe that was something that you made up.

MISSKELLEY: That was something I made up.

So, Jessie claimed that he had never seen the boys before, not even on TV, but then in response to another question, Jessie would say this…

OFSHE: Okay. Do you remember what you told them about – what were in the pictures?

MISSKELLEY: A bicycle – three boys on a bicycle, red bicycle and, uh, they was riding by some houses.

OFSHE: What made you say that? I mean why did you pick that as opposed to four boys on a scooter?

MISSKELLEY: Well I – I’ve seen – I’ve seen on TV the boys bicycles. And that’s where I got red from, and four houses, I mean not four houses but the white houses, mainly
well – most people’s houses are white, so that’s why I said white. It just popped up in my head – you know just – that’s what I mainly told them.

So after saying that he hadn’t even seen anything on TV about the the boys, he’s suddenly saying that he did, in order to try and explain away part of his statements.

One more claim is that Jessie didn’t ID the victims right. This is a myth. He himself admitted not knowing their names. In his confessions he correctly ID’s the victims based on their photos and descriptions on what happened to them. He however mixes up the names of which boy is which. Jessie’s even the first person to mention the injuries to the boys. And he correctly states that two of the boys were mutilated with a knife.

DETECTIVE RIDGE: Jason had a knife. What did he cut with the knife? What did you see him cut or who did you see him cut?
*A61 MISSKELLEY: I saw him cut one of the little boys
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, where did he cut him at?
*A62 MISSKELLEY: He was cutting him in the face.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Cutting in the face. Alright, another boy was cut I understand, where was he cut at?
*A63 MISSKELLEY: At the bottom
DETECTIVE RIDGE: On his bottom? Was he face down when he was cutting on him, or
*A64 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Now you’re talking about bottom, do you mean right here?
*A65 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: In his groin area?
*A66 MISSKELLEY: (No audio register)
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Okay
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Do you know what his penis is?
*A67 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm, that’s where he was cut at.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: That’s where he was cut.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Which boy was that?
*A68 MISSKELLEY: That right there.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: You’re talking about the Byers boy again?
*A69 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Okay
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Are you sure that he was the one that was cut?
*A70 MISSKELLEY: That’s the one that I seen them cutting on.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, you know what penis is?
*A71 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, is that where he was cutting?
*A72 MISSKELLEY: That’s where I seen them going down at, and he was on his back. I seen them going down right there real close to his penis and stuff and I saw some blood and that’s when I took off.

He mentions both a cut on the face and cut on the bottom area in this part, and when asked what he means by bottom he agrees he means the genitals. Not only that, but he’s the first person to mention these injuries in his statement.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html

Another claim is that Jessie got the knife wrong. He described it as a folding buck knife with a brown handle, but the one linked to the bodies through the serration marks was a survival knife that didn’t fold. There could be several reasons for this. Jessie claimed to have killed Michale Moore, who’s body was found a distance from Stevie Branch and Christopher Byers. Moore had been found 27 feet from the other two victims, so Jessie would have witnessed their attack from a far. It’s reasonable that Jessie may not have gotten a good look at everything. He also could have been lying like he did with the rope which is highly probable since he had already lied previously. One other strong possibility being that since there was more than one killer, there was more than one knife.

Now lets show what he actually got right in his statements.

We should first start out with some context of his questioning by police.

First we should get into Vicki Hutcheson. Vicki was the mother of Aaron Hutcheson, a friend of the victims in this case. Aaron had a babysitter who just so happened to be Jessie Misskelley. Jessie also often stayed at Vicki’s home, and was even found there the day he was questioned by police.

Around the time of the murders, Vicki would get in trouble with the police for writing bad checks. When she was asked to talk to police about her legal troubles, she would ask them if she could bring her son along. The police would tell her no, but she brought Aaron along anyway, hoping to gain some sympathy. While talking with the police it came out that the victims were missing, causing Aaron to mention how those were his friends.

From this the police would want to speak with Aaron about the crime, and looking to get out of trouble, Vicki would feed the boy stories. This would taint any information the boy would provide them. Thus anything of value he had, was lost forever.

RIDGE: OKAY… OKAY I UNDERSTAND NOW, ALRIGHT SINCE THIS THING HAPPENED, AND CHRIS AND MICHAEL WERE KILLED, OKAY, HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANY OF YOUR LITTLE FRIENDS, THAT MIGHT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?

AARON: NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED BUT ME, OUT OF ALL MY FRIENDS

RIDGE: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?

AARON: (inaudible)

RIDGE: TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED?

AARON: THEY UM, THEY WENT DOWN TO WATCH THOSE MEN AND

GITCHELL: NOW WHAT DAY DID THEY GO BACK TO WATCH THEM?

AARON: IT WAS ON… ON A WEDNESDAY

GITCHELL: ALRIGHT WERE YOU GOING TO GO WITH THEM, DID YOU WANT TO GO WITH THEM?

AARON: YEAH (YES), MY, I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE REALLY GOING TO DO

GITCHELL: DID SOMEONE NOT LET YOU GO?

AARON: MY MOM

GITCHELL: OKAY

RIDGE: OKAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED TO THEM?

AARON: I THINK THEY WAS WATCHING THEM MEN LIKE… LIKE WE ALWAYS DID, AND THEY… THEY GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN THEY NEVER TOLD THE MEN, AND THE MEN SORTA KILLED THEM

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/a_hutcheson_5_27_93.html

Vicki would also learn that Damien Echols was a suspect in the crime, and tried to get information connecting him to the murders. She would even talk Jessie Misskelley into helping her meet with Damien. She had heard from numerous people, that Damien was into Wicca, and interested in the occult. It was also no secret that he had several friends into Wicca who he liked to hangout with. After that she concocted a story claiming she attended an Esbat with Jessie and Damien. She’d even testify in court to this, only to later admit that she made it all up.

Vicki’s stories of cults would become a line of questioning that police would often ask about, and they’d even ask Jessie, who’d incorporate them into two of his confessions, along with Damien’s Wiccan friends.

One of Damien’s Wiccan friends was this man, Murray Farris.

m_farris_photo

Farris had a Wiccan group that would meet up occasionally, and even gave names of other members to the police.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/murray/m_farris_note.JPG

Another member of this group was Chris Littrell, a friend of Damien’s, who’d mention that the group was a coven, and that they formed this group about three or four months back.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/littrell/chris_littrell_report02.JPG

The group being around for three months jives with this portion of Jessie’s initial confession.

*A161 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm, I think when we had that cult.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Okay, now you have participated in this cult, right?
*A162 MISSKELLEY: Yes
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: And how long have you been involved in it?
*A163 MISSKELLEY: I’ve been in it for about three months.

It would seem from this context that when the police questioned him, that some of the more fanciful, and strange elements of the confession he had cobbled together from Damien’s friends and Vicki’s stories.

In part of a report on the first confession it would mention the friends and their coven, as a cult.

ON 060393 OFFICER RIDGE HAD OCCASION TO BE PRESENT IN AN INTERVIEW OF JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. IN THE WEST MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT HAD BEEN LEARNED THROUGH PREVIOUS INTERVIEWS THAT JESSIE HAD BEEN A FRIEND TO DAMIEN ECHOLS AND JASON BALDWIN WHO WERE CONSIDERED SUSPECTS IN THE ABOVE NOTED CASE. IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCOVERED THAT JESSIE, DAMIEN, AND JASON WERE MEMBERS OF A CULT LIKE GROUP OF YOUNGSTERS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD MEETINGS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE STATE.

Other portions of that report state as follows.

DETECTIVE SGT. MIKE ALLEN HAD ASKED JESSIE MISSKELLEY SR. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO TALK TO JESSIE JR. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT JESSIE SR. WENT AND PICKED JESSIE JR. UP AT WHICH TIME HE TURNED HIM OVER TO DETECTIVE SGT. MIKE ALLEN AT APPROXIMATELY 9:45 A.M. ON 060393.

DETECTIVE SGT. ALLEN BEGAN THE INTERVIEW WITH MISSKELLEY JR. AND THE STANDARD QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS NAME, BIRTH DATE, AND OTHER STATUS QUESTIONS CONTAINED ON A SUBJECT DESCRIPTION FORM WERE BEING ASKED AS I ENTERED THE ROOM WHERE THE INTERVIEW HAD BEGUN.

SGT. ALLEN WAS TAKING NOTES AS QUESTIONS WRE BEING ASKED ABOUT MISSKELLEY’S WHEREABOUT ON THE DATE THE VICTIMS WERE MURDERED. MISSKELLEY STATED THAT HE WAS WORKING THE WEEK THAT THE BOYS WERE KILLED AND THAT HE HAD BEEN AT WORK ON THE DAY THAT THEY WERE KILLED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD GOTTEN OFF WORK THAT DAY AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 PM AND THAT HE WENT HOME AFTER WORK WHERE HE STATED THAT HE STAYED AT HOME THE REST OF THE DAY. HE STATED THAT HE HAD NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOMICIDE. AS HE WAS MAKING THESE STATEMENTS HE WAS NERVOUS AND FAILED TO LOOK AT ME IN THE EYES AND HAD THE GESTURES THAT HE WAS BEING DECEPTIVE IN THE INTERVIEW.

JESSIE STATED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT DAMIEN HAD COMMITTED THE MURDERS WITH A FRIEND OF HIS BEING A PARTNER IN THE MURDERS. AGAIN HE WAS NERVOUS THROUGHOUT THE INTERVIEW FROM THIS POINT AND HE APPEARED TO BE WITH HOLDING INFORMATION. JESSIE STATED THAT HE KNEW THAT DAMIEN WAS SICK AND THAT HE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS. HE STATED THAT DAMIEN’S BEST FRIEND WAS JASON BALDWIN AND THAT HE KNEW THAT JASON WAS WITH DAMIEN ALL THE TIME. HE STATED THAT HE KNEW THAT DAMIEN HAD A GIRL FRIEND NAMED DOMINI WHO HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAST NAME OF AND DESCRIBED HER AS BEING A RED HAIRED, SKINNY, LIGHT COMPLEXIONED, AND LIVES IN LAKESHORE TRILER PARK NEAR JASON.

JESSIE STATED THAT HE HAD LAST SEEN DAMIEN ABOUT THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS INTERVIEW AND THAT HE HAD NEVER TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE MURDERS. HE THEN STATED THAT HE HAD SPENT THE NIGHT OF 060293 WITH A VICKI WHO HAS A SON NAMED AARON WHO LIVES IN

006244

THE HIGHLAND TRAILER PARK NEAR HIM. HE STATED THAT HE HAD INTRODUCED VICKI WHO IS A 34 YEAR OLD FEMALE WITH RED HAIR BECAUSE SHE HAD A PROWLER THE NIGHT BEFORE AND SHE WAS AFRAID FOR HER AND HER SON’S SAFETY. JESSIE THEN STATED THAT HE HAD TALKED TO DAMIEN AND HAD EVEN INTRODUCED HIM TO VICKI.

JESSIE HAD THEN STATED THAT HE HAD HEARD RUMORS THAT DAMIEN AND ROBERT BURCH HAD COMMITTED THE MURDERS. JESSIE AGAIN STATED THAT HE WAS CERTAIN THAT DAMIEN WAS CAPABLE OF COMMITTING THE MURDERS BUT THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT ROBERT BURCH.

AT THIS TIME I ASKED IF JESSIE WERE WILLING TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS STATEMENT AND HE STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER HAD A POLYGRAPH TEST BEFORE BUT THAT HE WOULD TAKE ON. MIKE ALLEN THEN BEGAN TO GET THE INFORMATION TOGETHER FROM THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER BILL DURHAM AS TO WHAT PERMISSION WOULD HAVE TO BE OBTAINED TO PERFORM THE EXAMINATION. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT JESSIE MISSKELLEY SR. WOULD HAVE TO GIVE PERMISSION TO PERFORM THE TEST AND DETECTIVE SGT. MIKE ALLEN TOOK JESSIE JR. TO FIND HIS FATHER AND OBTAIN THE PERMISSION.

JESSIE WAS READ HIS RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE MIRANDA RULE IN MY PRESENCE IN WHICH HE STATED THAT HE UNDER STOOD AND SIGNED AGGREEING TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOMICIDES.

DETECTIVE SGT. ALLEN OBTAINED THE PERMISSION FROM JESSIE MISSKELLEY SR. ON N. MISSOURI STREET AT MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT AT ABOUT 10:30 AM ON 060393.

DETECTIVE BILL DURHAM BEGAN THE INTERVIEW OF JESSIE MISSKELLEY AT ABOUT 10:30 AM AND HE CONCLUDED HIS LAST TEST AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 PM ON 060393. SHORTLY AFTER DETECTIVE DURHAM HAD COMPLETED HIS TESTING HE CAME OUT OF HIS OFFICE AND APPROIACHED DETECTIVE SGT. MIKE ALLEN AND INFORMED HIM THAT THE TEST HAD SHOWN THE JESSIE JR. WAS
BEING DECEPTIVE IN HIS RESPONSES ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MURDERS, HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE MURDERS, AND ABOUT BEING IN THE AREA KNOWN A ROBIN HOOD HILLS AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS.

Here’s the polygraph they administered to Jessie along with the results.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/jm_polygraph.jpg

This polygraph would indicate deception on Jessie’s part, so he failed it.

This trial transcript then demonstrates what happened next.

Fogleman: And approximately what time did you begin talking to him?

Gitchell: Uh, let’s see, that was approximately 12:40pm.

Fogleman: And during the course of your conversation, uhh, with this defendant, uh, initially, uh, were you doing anything to preserve the conversation? Yourself?

Gitchell: Uh, the — no sir.

Fogleman: Alright. Was Detective Ridge?

Gitchell: Uh, no sir. Not that I know of. He may have been taking some notes.

Fogleman: Okay. Why were you not taking notes at that time?

Gitchell: Well, when I talk with someone I usually do not like to, for the purpose, I like to key on and be able to listen and have my complete attention as to the conversation.

Fogleman: Alright. Now, during the course of this conversation, um, was there, um, let me ask you this way. Was there a photograph shown the defendant?

Gitchell: Yes sir, it was.

Fogleman: Alright. Uh, was there a small portion of a tape played for the defendant?

Gitchell: Yes sir, there was.

Fogleman: And was there something about a circle?

Gitchell: Yes sir.

Fogleman: Alright. Now was that done before or after you started tape recording?

Gitchell: That was before we started tape recording.

Fogleman: And do you recall the sequence of what took place when?

Gitchell: Uh, during Detective Ridge and I’s, uh conversation with Mr. Misskelley, uh there was a, I believe — I hope this is right — there was a, the diagram which I did, and then the picture and then the tape.

Fogleman: Alright. Were they one behind the other or were things in between?

Gitchell: Uh, there was some in between from the diagram, was the first thing. Then some time passed. And then there was the picture, um, just a few minutes passed from that point to the tape.

Fogleman: Okay. Now on the diagram, describe to the jury what this, what this was, this diagram.

Gitchell: Okay, um, a lot, I’m assuming a lot of people may be familiar with um a term, straddling the fence.

Fogleman: Um-hmm.

Gitchell: And that was sort of along the lines that I was thinking uh, when talking to someone that you do not feel is telling you the complete truth. Uh, quit straddling the fence, be on one side of it or the other. Uh, I did something a little different, in so much as I drew a circle, and I had several dots within that circle and several dots outside.

Fogleman: Okay.

Gitchell: And I asked, which side is he going to be on, on this outside or the inside.

Fogleman: Alright. Now who’s inside the circle?

Gitchell: Uh, no one in particular. No one named or, um, but I, I indicated that law enforcement was on the outside of the circle.

Fogleman: Alright. In general, what was on the inside?

Gitchell: Uh, in general, uh, just who was responsible for these crimes.

Fogleman: Alright. When you did this diagram, did you say these dots inside represent a particular named individual or individuals?

Gitchell: No sir.

Fogleman: Alright. And what did you do with the circle and the dots?

Gitchell: Uh, you mean afterwards or? Just pretty much like I did then, just did it on a piece of paper and that was it.

Fogleman: (interrupting) Alright.

Gitchell: And, of course, showed that to Jessie ’cause he was right there.

Fogleman: Alright. And when you showed it to him, what happened, what did you do?

Gitchell: Uh he, he immediately said that uh, he wanted to be on the outside of the circle with the law enforcement.

Fogleman: Okay. And, um, and then I take it you had some more conversation.

Gitchell: Yes sir.

Fogleman: And then what took place?

Gitchell: Uh, a short time later, uh, I stepped out of the room, uh…

Fogleman: (inaudible) before you, alright is that when you got the picture —

Gitchell: (interrupting) Yes sir —

Fogleman: — when you stepped out of the room? Okay.

Gitchell: I stepped out of the office that we were talking to Jessie in, and um, got this picture, and then also I remembered a recording, uh, of a phrase, just only a phrase, I believe probably a four to five second phrase within that recorded statement that I wanted to play for Jessie.

Fogleman: Alright. And the voice on this tape, without naming names uh, how old of a person was this on the tape?

Gitchell: Uh, eight years old.

Fogleman: Okay. And are you aware of whether or not the defendant, uh, knew, knew the person whose voice it was?

Gitchell: The information that we had was that he is familiar with the eight-year-old boy.

This audio tape played for Jessie was a statement given by Aaron Hutcheson.

First though, they’d show him a picture of Michael Moore.

Fogleman: Alright. Now, when you came back in the room, uh, I want to show you State’s Exhibit 76 and ask if you recognize that?

Gitchell: Yes sir, this is the, um, photograph that I showed Jessie. It has the number 3 on the front of the photograph, and on the back it’s number 107.

Fogleman: Okay. And what was the response to the photograph?

Gitchell: When I showed Jessie this photograph and he took it into his hand, and he just, he just went back in his chair like this. And, and he just locked in on it, fixed in on the photograph, and just kept staring at it and staring at it. And I could tell that he just was — I didn’t know how long he was going to do that. So I, I took it from his hand, and set it on the table that we were working on.

Here’s Gitchell demonstrating how Jessie was holding the photo.

Gitchell

Fogleman: Okay. And then what happened?

Gitchell: Briefly, just a few minutes after that, of course I um had the tape, which I do have that tape with me at this time —

Fogleman: Alright. Your Honor —

Gitchell: — and I played this small portion of that tape.

Fogleman: Your Honor, we would ask permission to play that portion of the tape.

The Court: Alright. You will be permitted to do so.

Gitchell: This may take a little, you know, problems I had.

(squeaky speeding up of tape noise)

TAPE: Nobody knows what happened but me, out of all — (clicked off)

Gitchell: Should I do that again, your Honor?

The Court: I think so.

TAPE: Nobody knows what happened by me, out of — (clicked off)

Fogleman: Okay, what, what did he say for the jurors that didn’t pick it, catch it?

Gitchell: He said, “Nobody knows what happened but me.”

Fogleman: Okay. Alright. And when you played this tape, what was the defendant’s response?

Gitchell: He, he immediately stated that he wanted to tell us about it, at that point.

Fogleman: Alright. And um, at some point thereafter did Detective Ridge leave the room?

Gitchell: Yes sir, he did.

Fogleman: Alright. And uh, while Detective Ridge was out of the room, what took place?

Gitchell: Uh, at that point, uh, Jessie indicated to me that uh, he was present during that time that the boys were murdered.

Fogleman: Okay. Now was there (cough) had there been some statement, uh, or what statements if any did the defendant make in your presence about having been, uh, at the scene?

Gitchell: He, he had stated earlier that he had been at the scene, um, that um, also that he had gone back to the scene…

Fogleman: Alright, you said gone back. Were those his words?

Gitchell: Yes.

Fogleman: Alright. Did he say that before or after, uh, he admitted being there when it took place?

Gitchell: Uh, let’s see. I, it may have been before.

Fogleman: Okay.

Gitchell: It, it does get a little confusing, even for me.

Fogleman: Alright. What did he say about when he went back to the scene?

Gitchell: That, uh, he went out into the woods, where this occurred, the murders, and he set out and cried.

Fogleman: Alright. And uhh, after he admitted to you that he had been there, um, or I may be jumping ahead of myself. Now tell me again what he said to you while he was, while Detective Ridge was out of the room.

Gitchell: That uh, he was, he was present when the, the boys were murdered.

Fogleman: Alright. And after he admitted to you that he was present, what was the defendant’s response?

Gitchell: Uh, basically, uh, I stopped him at that point.

Fogleman: Alright.

Gitchell: And uh, then I wanted to make sure it, it was obvious at this time we had more than just uh, a person that we were trying to get information from as to other parties. Uh, it was obvious to us that uh, we had a person here that uh, was involved.

Fogleman: Was there any kind of emotional response?

Gitchell: Uh, from Jessie?

Fogleman: Yes.

Gitchell: Uh, well he was emotionally upset, you could tell that, uh, it was an emotional time for myself also.

Fogleman: Alright, when you say it was emotional for him and you could tell it, what told you that —

Gitchell: Well he had, he had tears coming down his eyes.

Fogleman: Alright. Had y’all yelled at him or been mean to him or —

Gitchell: No sir.

Fogleman: — threatened him or promised him anything, done any of those things?

Gitchell: None of those things happened whatsoever.

Fogleman: Alright, now after he admitted to being there, what did you do in order to preserve the conversation?

Gitchell: Okay, uh, I instructed that uh, Detective Ridge, I went out to the room said we need to get a tape recorder which is, this is the identical tape recorder that was used. Uh, the tape recorder was brought into the room, myself and Detective Ridge at that point, we advised him of his rights for the third time that day.

Fogleman: Alright. Now before you go on, I want to hand you what I’ve marked for identification purposes as State’s Exhibit 75A and ask if you can identify that?

Gitchell: Yes sir, this is a uh typed transcript of that taped interview.

Fogleman: And does that transcript fairly portray what it said on the tape?

Gitchell: Yes sir.

After being shown the photo of one of the victims, and listening to the tape of Aaron, the boy he had babysat, and friend of the victims, he broke down crying. It was during this crying that he admitted that he was there when the boys were murdered, and stated how he had even returned to the crime scene and cried about what had happened there.

After this, the confession was taped, and within it Jessie volunteered new information. Something innocent people don’t usually do. And this information happened to explain why Michael Moore’s body was found a distance away from the other two victims.

Here’s Jessie’s statements.

RIDGE: Okay
JESSIE: And started doing the same thing, then the other one took off, Michael Moore took off running, so I chased him and grabbed him and hold him, until they got there and then I left.
RIDGE: Alright, when you get the boys back together, where were you at from the creek?
JESSIE: I was up there by the Service Road
RIDGE: Up by the Service Road?
JESSIE: Yes
RIDGE: Okay, now when this, when he hit the first boy, where are they at when he hits him, are you in the woods, you’re on the side of big bayou, you’re out in the field, where were you at?
JESSIE: I was in the woods.
RIDGE: In the woods. Okay, you’ve been down there in those woods before, can you describe to me what in those woods, what’s the location where you were?
JESSIE: Uh,
RIDGE: Is there a path that you go down?
JESSIE: Uh, down a little path
RIDGE: Alright, where does that path go too?
JESSIE: It leads out there close to the field, close to the interstate.
RIDGE: Okay
JESSIE: Close to the interstate
RIDGE: When he hits the first boy and then Jason hits another boy, and one takes off running, where does he run too?
JESSIE: That one, he runs out, out the park and I chased him and grabbed him and brought him back.

Here’s Jessie telling his own lawyer this from a later confession.

STIDHAM: Did you know what was going to happen at that point?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: Why did you chase him down and bring him back – or did you?

MISSKELLEY: No, I didn’t – until Damien told me, “Get him.” And then that’s when I went back after him and got him. Then I brought him back and that’s when –

STIDHAM: What was the boy wearing that you went and got and brought back?

MISSKELLEY: Uh – to my knowledge, I’m going to say, the one – I don’t know their names, you know, to my knowledge, the one that was wearing, uh, like a boy scout uniform. I don’t know, you know, that’s to my knowledge. That’s what one of them was wearing, I don’t know which boy.

STIDHAM: Damien told you to go get him and bring him back?

(Page 48)

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh, (Affirmatively indicating) after I done hit him first.

So he volunteered a fact that he couldn’t know. It was never publicized that one of the boys was found farther away from the others, and that it was Michael Moore. Did he just guess and happen to get lucky on this part? That right there seems to point out that he’s telling the truth.

He also stated about an injury on Stevie’s penis, which was accurate.

MISSKELLEY: Then Damien started messing, you know, playing around with his penis and stuff.

STIDHAM: What do you mean playing around with it? Tell me exactly what happened.

MISSKELLEY: He put his hand over the top of it, on – you know, squeezing it, at it, squeezing it.

The examiner testified about an injury to Stevie’s penis.

“Here on state’s exhibit 65B what we can see is, we have a photograph of the head of the penis and midshaft of the penis. And you can note here this dark discoloration, which is bruising and overlying this area of bruising – if you look very closely you can see a smaller area of bruising and fine linear scratches. Now state’s exhibit 64B is showing the undersurface of the penis. And here you can see the injury and part of the head and shaft of the penis, but what’s important to note in this photograph is that we have a clear line of demarcation here. Ok, where we have this area here – which was involved, and we have this nice circumferential band going around the penis – which can also be seen on the front of the penis – the injured part of the penis. This line of demarcation, which is separating the injury and the uninvolved um – skin.”

After some prodding by his own lawyer in which he seemed embarrassed about having watched his friends not only rape some children but that he watched his friends commit a homosexual act he would state this.

STIDHAM: Did Damien ever suck on that boy’s penis?

MISSKELLEY: (long pause) That – the one that he was going to get, you know, screw him from behind. He went on him – he went down on him.

STIDHAM: Damien sucked that little boy’s penis?

MISSKELLEY: He didn’t suck on it, he bit it.

(Page 60)

STIDHAM: What do you mean he bit it?

MISSKELLEY: Bit the top – the head of it.

STIDHAM: How do you know he did it?

MISSKELLEY: Not hard, but – I’m – I’m going to say he didn’t do it hard.

STIDHAM: How do you know that’s what he did?

MISSKELLEY: I seen him – I seen his head going down that way. I don’t know, you know, I don’t know if he – I don’t know if he did or not, but I seen his head go between that boy’s legs.

So you have the examiner saying someone wounded Stevie’s genitals. Then you have Jessie saying how Damien squeezed, pinched, and even bit them.

Jessie also stated that he left separately from Damien and Jason, and that he busted a bottle of Evan Williams whiskey under a bridge afterwords. He’d give information to his lawyer about this busted whiskey bottle.

STIDHAM: Okay. What did you do with the whiskey bottle?

MISSKELLEY: Well, after I’d done seen what Jason did to – I don’t know which boy it was – but he cut his penis and everything, and I was still mad and I still had whiskey in my bottle. I walked down the street drinking whiskey, and all of a sudden I just busted it.

STIDHAM: Where’d you bust it at?

MISSKELLEY: On the overpass.

(Page 68)

STIDHAM: Which overpass?

MISSKELLEY: Going towards – came back that way.

STIDHAM: Did you walk over the top of the overpass?

MISSKELLEY: I went back the same way I came. Up – up under by Lakeshore – where I busted it was at Lakeshore, by the Lakeshore where – between Wal-Mart and Lakeshore, over that overpass. I busted it there.

STIDHAM: On top of the overpass?

MISSKELLEY: No. I was underneath walking. I didn’t walk over it, I just walked underneath on the grass and stuff all the way through. And that’s when I busted the bottle.

STIDHAM: Underneath it?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Directly underneath it?

MISSKELLEY: I just threw it and hit the side.

STIDHAM: Which side? Do you remember?

MISSKELLEY: Which side? Like they was going – I mean the road was going towards –

STIDHAM: Did you throw up? You told the officers that you threw up.

MISSKELLEY: No, I got – I was dizzy.

STIDHAM: Okay, where did you go after you left the overpass where you busted the bottle?

MISSKELLEY: I walked straight home.

Now this is that Overpass that he busted the bottle under.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=35.168625,-90.185203&hl=en&num=1&t=h&z=17

After his confession to his lawyer, the following happened.

” To clarify some incorrect statements that Mr. Stidham made, originally we went down to the Department of Correction on Tuesday, which would have been the Tuesday after Mr. Misskelley was convicted.

It was our information that on the way down to the Department of Corrections on Friday, that he had spoken, talked continuously for a period of two to three hours, however long it took to get there, describing his involvement and even indicating to the officers that he was not shocked by what the jury did because he basically deserved the punishment he received. He talked constantly about what — his involvement in the case. The officers advised me of that information and that’s when I contacted Dan Stidham to see if we should go down there to discuss his client’s options and if he did in fact want to testify.

We then rode down to the Department of Corrections on Tuesday. Mr. Stidham rode with me. Mr. Fogleman and Mr. Gitchell met us at Brinkley, and we went to Pine Bluff. At that time, Mr. Stidham talked with him for approximately ten or fifteen minutes, at which point he came out of the room, grabbed a Bible. went back in and — this is my personal observation — but approximately 30 to 45 minutes later Mr. Stidham exited. He was very upset, unnerved, just kept mumbling things — “I don’t know what I’m supposed to do now. I don’t know what to do now.”

And after thirty minutes of conversation, it became apparent at that point that his client had indicated that he was involved in the murders and had in fact witnessed and played a part in the murders.

Mr. Stidham then went back into the room, at which time he did not allow us, nor did we request or insist on having contact with his client. He went back inside and talked for another hour and came back and to paraphrase indicated that his client’s story matched with the facts much better and there were a few things we needed to do to be able to corroborate his statement.

At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client’s statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.

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.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html

So they recovered the busted bottle of Evan Williams that Jessie described. They also would even find the person who bought him the booze on the day of the murders after Jessie gave them her name.

MISSKELLEY: Then Vickie went uh, went to the store and bought

(Page 7)

me some liquor.

STIDHAM: Vickie Hutcheson?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.

STIDHAM: Okay, so about 6 o’clock. Is that, where did you run into her at?

MISSKELLEY: I went to her house.

STIDHAM: So you went by (inaudible) to Vickie’s house? This is on May 5th, the day the boys were killed?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.

STIDHAM: And Vickie went to buy you some liquor?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.

STIDHAM: Where’d she go, did you go with her?

MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Did you stay at the house when she left, or tell me what happened?

MISSKELLEY: I was standing on the corner talking with Dennis, Dennis Carter.

STIDHAM: Standing on the corner where?

MISSKELLEY: By my house.

STIDHAM: So tell me how you went to Vickie and why she went to get you some liquor?

MISSKELLEY: I asked, no, Dennis asked uh, asked me, you know, did I know anybody to get us something to drink? I told him, Vickie will. So we gave Vickie some money and I went down her house and started talking just a little bit, and I asked her

(Page

would she go to the store and buy me some liquor.

STIDHAM: And she said -?

MISSKELLEY: She said, yes. She said hand me the money, she said, I’ll go in a minute. I said, okay.

STIDHAM: You left her house, or what?

MISSKELLEY: I left her house, and me and Dennis went to my house and you know watched as she went around the corner and we sat there on the corner, sat there and talked about, you know, drinking. and stuff.

STIDHAM: So did Vickie bring you some liquor?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, she carried it to her house and me and Dennis went down there and got it.

STIDHAM: What did she buy you?

MISSKELLEY: Evan Williams.

STIDHAM: Evan Williams?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh.

STIDHAM: What is that, wine?

MISSKELLEY: Whiskey.

STIDHAM: Just one bottle?

MISSKELLEY: She bought two bottles.

STIDHAM: How big are the bottles?

MISSKELLEY: About – –

STIDHAM: Fifth?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah, about – –

STIDHAM: About this tall?

(Page 9)

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Then what happened?

MISSKELLEY: Then I started drinking out, uh, Dennis’ bottle, and I told him I was going to Lakeshore.

STIDHAM: So, did you go to Lakeshore?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah.

STIDHAM: what happened when you went to Lakeshore?

MISSKELLEY: I met Damien and Jason Baldwin.

STIDHAM: What did ya’ll talk about? Did you have your whiskey bottle with you? ‘

MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir, I did.

STIDHAM: How’d you carry it?

MISSKELLEY: Carried in the front of my pants.

Jessie would also give a perfect description of how to walk from his home to the crime scene.

STIDHAM: Did you talk with anybody on your way to Lakeshore?

MISSKELLEY: No, I was walking by myself.

STIDHAM: Did you walk down in front of ____’s shop? How’d you get to Lakeshore?

MISSKELLEY: I was walking from my aunt’s house. Then walked down towards John Heck’s.

STIDHAM: What?

HISSKELLEY: Heck’s. Right behind –

STIDHAM: Heck’s?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah, right behind the shop.

STIDHAM: What’s that, Heck’s?

MISSKELLEY: That’s a wrecker service.

STIDHAM: Oh, okay. Did you go under that little railroad thing?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating) And I went up under the underpass, then I Saw Damien and Jason and walked –

(Page 11)

STIDHAM: Where were they at? Were they under the underpass or were they? –

MISSKELLEY: No. They was at Lakeshore.

STIDHAM: Where did you meet them?

MISSKELLEY: In the park by Quinton’s house, Quinton Johnson.

STIDHAM: You talk to Quinton that day?

MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Did you see anybody else outside?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: Somebody seen the two of you talking or something?

MISSKELLEY: But, people don’t say nothing when we talk.

STIDHAM: But did anybody see, or did you talk to anybody else?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: So you’re in a park?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. By the – by the lake.

STIDHAM: Is there swing sets there or something, or – ?

MISSKELLEY: No, it wasn’t a swing set.

STIDHAM: How do you know it’s a park?

MISSKELLEY: It’s like a field between houses and stuff.

STIDHAM: Just playground equipment there?

MISSKELLEY: Huh-huh. (Negatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Was there anybody else there?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: Damien and Jason were just there?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

(Page 12)

STIDHAM: Did they know you were coming?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah, ‘cause that’s when Jason called me, uh, that Monday.

STIDHAM: Told you to be down there Wednesday?

MISSKELLEY: Uh—huh. He said that’s we was going to go to Lakeshore and find some girls.

STIDHAM: Go to Lakeshore and find some girls?

MISSKELLEY: No – he called me Monday and asked me to come to Lakeshore, we was going to go to West Memphis, we was going to go find some girls in West Memphis.

STIDHAM: Okay. Did ya’ll talk about hurting boys, or doing anything to boys, or -?

MISSKELLEY: No, sir.

So at this point he’s at the park out across the street from the Walmart, and from there the crime scene is straight down the service road.

STIDHAM: Okay. May the 5th, you get to Lakeshore about 6:30?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.

STIDHAM: And you met at this park by Quinton’s house?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: You didn’t see anybody else there, nobody else was standing around that would have seen you?

MISSKELLEY: No, sir. ‘Cause I always went the back way, you know, towards Jason’s house. I always went the back way, not the front way.

(Page 22)

STIDHAM: What happened after you went to the park – now you say you were supposed to meet them there that day?

MISSKELLEY: Supposed to meet them in West-I mean Lakeshore.

STIDHAM: At 6:30 or just whenever you got there?

MISSKELLEY: Whenever I got – I had time.

STIDHAM: Okay.

MISSKELLEY: So, we started walking towards West Memphis –

STIDHAM: How’d you get there?

MISSKELLEY: We walked.

STIDHAM: I mean, did you walk along the interstate or? –

MISSKELLEY: No, we walked over a overpass.

STIDHAM: Overpass?

MISSKELLEY: You go – it’s the overpass between Lakeshore and Wal-Mart, is the overpass. We walked over it.

STIDHAM: Did you throw anything down, or pick any thing up, or did anybody see you?

MISSKELLEY: I don’t know there was a bunch of traffic going by, I don’t know.

STIDHAM: You didn’t see anybody you knew or talk to anybody you knew?

MISSKELLEY: I didn’t know nobody.

STIDHAM: Where did you go?

MISSKELLEY: We started walking toward West-uh, to Wal-Mart, I – I – Jason and me, you know –

STIDHAM: Kenny Watkins. Do you know that guy?

(Page 23)

MISSKELLEY: Kenny Watkins?

STIDHAM: Watkins, that man you (inaudible)?

MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating) I may know if I see his face, but other than that –
STIDHAM: So ya’ll started over the overpass, and –

MISSKELLEY: We started walking toward Lakeshore and I asked Jason, you know, – –

STIDHAM: were you walking from Lakeshore?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. I asked Jason, you know, where we’re going to find them girls at. He said we just going to walk around and look. And I said, okay. So we started walking. We went down – down Blue Beacon Road, and then by a bridge, we saw a little trail, and we went down that little trail. And we sit there and we started drinking.

STIDHAM: Okay, now did you see – I assume that you walked down from Wal-Mart right there, then walked down across from Missouri Street? Do you know where Missouri Street is in West Memphis, by McDonalds and Krystal?

MISSKELLEY: We didn’t go that far down.

STIDHAM: How far down did you go?

MISSKELLEY: We went from Wal-Mart, stayed on that road all the way down, all the way, went through the red light, over the railroad track and on down to (inaudible) then Blue Beacon and Lowe’s.

STIDHAM: Okay. So is there a liquor store there by those

(Page 24)

railroad tracks that you’re talking about walking over?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah. It just says Liquor.

STIDHAM: You walked down the service road then? Right?

MISSKELLEY: Yep.

STIDHAM: And it was just the three of you?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

That’s a near perfect description of how to walk to the crime scene from someone who’s supposedly “innocent”.

Here’s a photo of the area, with the Walmart location shown in relation to the crime scene. The park Jessie mentions is marked with an “X”. This is where he claimed he met up with his friends that day.

543971_522588441107483_2099059295_n

At one point Stidham even had Jessie describe for him, and draw the crime scene.

STIDHAM: Okay Jessie. I’m going to let you draw me a picture here. I’m going to get it started for you. I’m going to date it up here 2-8-94. I’m going to draw a picture of the service road here. Okay? And we’re going to make this right here Blue Beacon Truck Wash.

MISSKELLEY: There’s a Army supply – or a Army, National Guard deal.

STIDHAM: Where at? Point to it.

MISSKELLEY: Well, I know its, you know, (inaudible) can’t do it like this, So, it’s going to be, you know, to my (inaudible)

(Page 32)

there’ll be a little slope, there’s going to be a bridge going across the road, and there’s the army right here and then there’s a road –

STIDHAM: Let me let you have a red ink pen. That one don’t work too good. Try this one.

MISSKELLEY: That’s leaking.

STIDHAM: Yeah, that’s not going to work. Okay, this is green. Draw me where the bridge is.

MISSKELLEY: Okay. There’s be a – see I could do better, you know.

STIDHAM: Make an X where the dog track was.

MISSKELLEY: Dog track?

STIDHAM: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

MISSKELLEY: Uh, about probably here. That’s the dog track.

STIDHAM: That’s the other side of the interstate?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh, that’s the dog track.

STIDHAM: Where did you put a bridge at?

MISSKELLEY: The bridge? There’s a – the Blue Beacon, and there’ll be a little – like a little, I’m going to say like a little driveway right up in there.

STIDHAM: Driveway for what?

MISSKELLEY: Going towards the field. You know, for tractors and plowers?

STIDHAM: Okay. Where is the bridge at?

MISSKELLEY: The bridge would be about – about like that – the

(Page 33)

bridge.

STIDHAM: Make the bridge go all the way across this other stuff so you’ll know what it is.

MISSKELLEY: This bridge don’t go like that. Yeah it does, it goes like that.

STIDHAM: Why is there a bridge there? IS there something under the bridge?

MISSKELLEY: Water.

STIDHAM: Is it a river, or – ?

MISSKELLEY: I’m – I’m going to say it’s something like that, but – –

STIDHAM: Draw me a picture of the – draw me a picture of where the pipe is you were talking about.

MISSKELLEY: The bridge, the trail, water, and trees – like big trees, and right beside that there’s – going across, like that.

STIDHAM: Pipe going across?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Is that in the woods or beside the woods?

MISSKELLEY: In it. The woods was there was in it.

STIDHAM: Draw me the creek now.

MISSKELLEY: Creek.

STIDHAM: I see the creek starts there at that bridge?

MISSKELLEY: Creek, all right there’s the trail, there’s the bridge, there’s water going up under it all the way down, then there’s trees, like that, then trees, and it goes all the way to

(Page 34)

the pipe, and then it goes on out.

STIDHAM: Where does the creek go?

MISSKELLEY: I don’t know where it goes. All I know it just – it just – just flows.

STIDHAM: Are there any houses nearby, or anything?

MISSKELLEY: The houses back – back – back by this way. About – where the driveway’s at then there’s a field, and you can see through them trees and there are houses.

STIDHAM: Isn’t there the bayou, isn’t there a bigger river or creek?

MISSKELLEY: By that field, by that – where that driveway is at there’s a field and there’s trees and just – like the bayou goes all the way through there, all the way back to towards – back to the (inaudible). That’s it.

STIDHAM: Is that a big creek or a little creek?

MISSKELLEY: Pretty big.

In one of his statements with his own lawyer Dan would even try and trip him up, but Jessie remained consistent.

STIDHAM: When you left, you went up the creek and got out by Blue Beacon?

JESSIE: I got on the service road.

STIDHAM: Okay, you didn’t go back the same way you came in down by the video place?

JESSIE: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating) I went – I went through the service road. (pause) From Blue Beacon and – it was quite a while to walk.

STIDHAM: So you left, when you got out to come by the service road by Blue Beacon you just walked back home, by the service road. So you stayed near the interstate almost all the way?

JESSIE: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Anybody see you or did you see anybody or recognize anybody?

JESSIE: I didn’t see nobody I recognized.

If Jessie was lying or easily coerced he would have said he left by the video store like Dan had just suggested.

He also described the bridge at the crime scene in perfect detail.

MISSKELLEY: We sit by some trees. By a tree that was, that was leaned over. There was a – like a – I’m going to say like a water pipe.

STIDHAM: Water pipe. What kind of water pipe?

MISSKELLEY: That’s what I’m going to say what it is. I don’t

(Page 30)

know what it was.

STIDHAM: Was the pipe going up in the air, pipe going -?

MISSKELLEY: No. Pipe going like this way, makes it a walkway or something, like a little bridge – something like that. And we started drinking. Then we started drinking and then we heard some noise. And then, uh, me and Jason hid, and Damien just sit there, and then all of a sud – he told him to hide and he did. Then these boys came up.

STIDHAM: Now this pipe that came across the water, was it on a creek? Or – describe it to me. Was there trees around? or was it in the open? Or?-

MISSKELLEY: Lots of trees.

STIDHAM: Is there a pipe? – describe it to me, I want to make sure I understand.

MISSKELLEY: Pipe. It’s like a sewage type.

STIDHAM: Was it as big around as your leg or big around as your arm, or finger, or?

MISSKELLEY: It’s like a sewage pipe. To my knowledge, I’m going to say it’s like that big around. To my knowledge.

STIDHAM: Big enough to walk on?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah.

STIDHAM: Is there any other things going across the water?

MISSKELLEY: Anything going across the water? You mean floating?

STIDHAM: I mean, say there’s a pipe going across the water.

(Page 31)

MISSKELLEY: Go – goes towards the – to the other side of the bank.

STIDHAM: So what’s on the other side of the bank?

MISSKELLEY: Trees.

He even mentions how he wouldn’t advise riding a bike across this bridge which would be a legitimate comment to make about the bridge.

STIDHAM: Okay. Now you described this pipe? How big a pipe is it?

MISSKELLEY: About that wide. From that wall –

STIDHAM: Could you ride a bicycle across this pipe?

MISSKELLEY: I wouldn’t try it.

STIDHAM: How come?

MISSKELLEY: I just wouldn’t.

images

(The bridge Jessie is referring to.)

Now besides from Jessie’s detailed description of the crime scene and how to get there eye witnesses also reported seeing two individuals covered in mud walking away from the crime scene.

One was Damien Echols, and the other was possibly either Jason Baldwin or Damien’s girlfriend at the time, Domini Teer. Domini claimed it wasn’t her, and people who knew Damien, said he was out with Jason on the night of the murder, furthering the possibility that it was indeed Jason. The eye witnesses had been family members of Domini, and in truth, Jason could have easily been mistaken for the girl. Both had long hair, that would look similar in the dark. Both also wore black t-shirts and jeans with holes in the knees. Not to mention that Jason, was a small, wiry teen, so it’s not surprising that he’d be mistaken for a girl.

A photo of Jason from 1996.

Untitled

A photo of him from 1993

States_exhibit_99

A photo of Domini Teer.

Domini

Another photo of Domini

teer_domini

A photo of Domini in her usual clothing at the time. It consisted of black t-shirts and jeans, just as Jason Baldwin usually dressed.

00damien_and_domini

A final comparison with Baldwin’s mugshot.

BALDWIN_MUG_t607

Here’s a link to some of the testimony concerning this sighting.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/narleneh.html

Jessie also stated that there was some semen found on a pair of pants belonging to the victims.

MISSKELLEY: Then he, uh, he shot off on the pants and stuff.

STIDHAM: Who did?

MISSKELLEY: Damien.

STIDHAM: Why did he do that?

MISSKELLEY: To be sick.

There was indeed a possible semen stain found on one of the pairs of pants.

Fogleman: Alright. And uh – first with blood, what type of test did, do you run on an item like that to try to detect the presence of blood?

Channell: For the blood, we use a screening test called phenolphthalein. Uh – basically, I took the items of clothing with a swab and went over them carefully and tried to determine if there could be blood on these items. On both sets of pants, the items were negative. I could not determine if there were any blood present.

Fogleman: Alright. And um – in regard to these pants and all the other items that you examined, what effect if any does uh – an item of evidence being in water have on your ability to find items?

Channell: Uh – being uh – wet, especially being say, submerged in the water, or even being dirty or soiled has a very detrimental effect on any type of biological materials that you might find. Being in the water can make it virtually impossible at times to identify any type of material.

Fogleman: Okay. And uh – does cold water as opposed to hot water have any particular effect on blood in particular?

Channell: I believe with uh – there are some studies with one versus the other, but uh – regardless of water temperature, still it will deteriorate the sample.

Fogleman: Alright. And what uh – now I believe you indicated that you ran tests for blood on these items and I’m sure you’ve said it, but what were the results of those tests as far as blood?

Channell: Uh – they were negative.

Fogleman: Alright. And then did you uh – and what was the other type of test or what other item were you looking for?

Channell: I examined these items for the presence of semen.

Fogleman: Alright. And what type of test did you run for that?

Channell: The first test that I used is basically a screening tool. I laid the clothing out and because of the nature of the clothing, uh – being very dirty and soiled, I used a laser, which emits an ultraviolet light, which helps to pick up any possible stains that you might not be able to see uh – with the unaided eye. I did find some areas. I made cuttings of those areas and then further tested them for the presence of acid phosphatase. Acid phosphatase is an enzyme which is found in semen. Uh – it is also found in other items, for instance blood. But however, it is not in the same quantities. We can not quantitate the amount of acid phosphatase present, therefore we use it again as a screening tool to tell you whether or not there could be semen present. I then took those cuttings and took an extract from those cuttings and looked microscopically to see if I could identify any sperm cells present, which I could not on either pair. I further examined those cuttings for the presence of what is termed P30, which is a prostatic antigen which is specific to the male prostate. In this examination, uh – I did have some positive controls along with my cutting samples, which indicated to me that there could be some interaction with the material that was hindering me with getting a proper answer, uh – therefore, I had to conclude that I could not determine based on my testing that semen was present and because of that reason, I then took those cuttings and submitted them also to Genetic Design where they could employ DNA testing, which is far more sensitive then my testing.

Fogleman: Alright. Let me ask you this, how many screening tests did you run on the pants or the cuttings, either one? For semen I mean.

Channell: Actually, I ran the laser as a screening test and also the acid phosphatase as a screening.

Fogleman: And on those two screening tests, uh – what was the reaction?

Channell: Uh – these reactions were positive.

Fogleman: Positive for what?

Channell: Uh – for those specific screening tests. What we employed those screening tests for – for instance, if one screening test is positive that lets us continue with our testing. If it however was negative, then we would stop with the analysis at that point.

Fogleman: And so, both tests were positive as a screening test for the presence of semen?

Channell: That’s correct.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/kermitc1.html

So there might have been semen on the pants of the victims and Jessie just so happens to get that right as well?

This here is from Gitchell at trial.

Q: Out of the hundred or more people y’all talked to, are you aware of anybody other than the defendant who told you that there was one of the victims that had their genitals removed and one of them had cuts to the side of the face and there had been some grabbing of the ears?

A: There was no one else that mentioned those particular injuries and you yourself, Mr. Fogleman, you are pointing to the wrong side of the cheek.

Q: But nobody else?

A: No one else.

He’s the only person to ever mention all of this information.

Jessie also mentioned that part of the ditch was slicked off.

MISSKELLEY: After they done tied them up. You know, I – I – I, you know, I wiped my footprints with a stick, you know, like a zigzag, covering up my footprints and everything. And the blood, they wiped them on, you know, like in the water, make sure all the blood was off the water – make sure the blood was off the leaves and stuff.

STIDHAM: How’d they do that?

MISSKELLEY: Rubbed together, or get their finger and just wipe if off real good. And just wipe that off.

STIDHAM: Anybody have a water hose or anything?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: Buckets of water or anything?

MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh, (Negatively indicating) by the ditch deal.

STIDHAM: Then how did they get the water up on the bank?

MISSKELLEY: How?

STIDHAM: Splashing it with their hands?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Is that what you’re doing?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah.

Jessie also mentions how Damien licked blood off his fingers from Stevie’s face.

DAVIS: What, what was Damien doing during this time?

MISSKELLEY: Well the one that got cut on his face, he stuck his finger on his cheek and slicked the blood off of it.

Late into the trial, blood possibly belonging to Stevie was then found on Damien’s necklace. The necklace also had blood from Damien on it as well.

http://youtu.be/NKnGYZfuBBQ

This seems telling, that there’s possible blood on Echols from a boy Jessie says he attacked.

Jessie also got it correct that there was some injuries behind the ears on the boys.

Peretti: Okay. State’s exhibit 64A is showing some abrasions, contusion or brusing behind the ear and some scattered abrasions that were under the scalp on the left side here. The slight discoloration here is the bruising behind the ear and you can see this little area here, this discoloration here–abrasion or scrape behind the ear.

Now here’s Jessie’s statement.

MISSKELLEY: He grabbed one of’m by the ear, I don’t know which one, he grabbed on of’m by the ear trying to pull his ear off or something. He grabbed’m pretty tight. It turned kind of red.

The boys were also likely sexually assaulted, which Jessie mentions as well.

Davis: And Doctor, did you make any findings regarding the examination of the anal area regarding dilation?

Peretti: Yes, there was anal dilatation.

Davis: Okay. And that means a loosening or slackening of the muscles surrounding the anal area?

Peretti: That’s correct.

Davis: And was there also the purple–or is there some abrasions in the-on the buttocks in that photograph?

Peretti: You can see some abrasions and scrapes in the post-mortem lividity. This red discoloration here is the post-mortem lividity or the settling of the blood–of the blood vessels after death. State’s exhibit 69A is a photograph of the anal orifice. Here we can see abrasions, some focal areas of contusion in the lividity. State’s exhibits 72A and 73A show the front and back of the hands showing the–a few abrasions, but what I’m trying to point out here is the washer-woman, the wrinkling of the hands showing that the bodies have been in water. That’s the wrinkling.

Davis Now Doctor, and you may need to refer to your report, I’m not sure it’s clearly shown in the photographs, did you also find on the hands some defense-what are referred to in your report as defense-type wounds? Think I’m referring to page…

Peretti: .Pg. 5. Yes, on the right thenar eminence, this part of the anatomy here, I found some cuts, a one inch cut. There are also some some very small lacerations measured about 1/8 of an inch each. On the back of the left hand, there was a 3/4 inch scratch and a 1/16 inch abrasion was present on the left thumb.

Davis: Now, when you characterize these as defense-type wounds what–what do you mean by that?

Peretti: Well, it’s type of injuries that we normally see when people are trying to defend themselves.

Davis: And do you normally see those injuries to the hand as what you described here?

Peretti: Well, you see them to the hands, you can see them to the forearms, also the legs, also the feet, dependent on the situation

Davis: Okay. And the washer-woman wrinkling that you referred to to the hands. What does that indicate?

Peretti: Well, this indicates that the bodies were in water and there is evidence of submersion.

Davis: Doctor, if you could refer to the next photograph and explain your findings.

Peretti: Okay, the next photographs are State’s exhibit 65A and 66A show the mucosal surface of the inner aspects of the lips, the upper lip and the lower lip respectively, and also the nose. Here on the nose, we can see some abrasions or scrapes. Here on the upper lip, we can see some cuts surrounded by contusion and edema or swelling. That’s 65A.

Davis: Doctor, does that also reflect some–what you refer to as punctate scratches of the nose?

Peretti: Yes, sir.

Davis: What, what are those?

Peretti: Very–they were enumerable, very small scratches or abrasions situated on the entire nose. State’s exhibit 66A is also showing the nose where you can see the abrasions or scrapes and the lower lip where you can see the bruising, that dark discoloration in the photograph is the bruise.

Davis: Doctor, in your experience as a medical examiner when you see injuries to the ears and injuries to the inside surface of the mouth, what does that indicate to you in a person that’s eight years old and has died this type of death?

Peretti: Well, there’s a number of possibilities but commonly when we see the ears contused on both sides or bruised with all lying fine linear scratches…

Stidham: Your Honor, I’m going to object. May I approach the bench?

The Court: [unintelligible] Well, rephrase your question. I think that is probably overbroad.

Davis: Doctor, let me ask you, have you seen–in your past experenience as a medical examiner, have you seen similar injuries to the ears of children?

Peretti: Yes, I have.

Davis: Okay. And in those cases were they frequently also accompanied by injuries to the child’s mouth?

Peretti: Yes, they were.

Davis: Okay. And based on your past experience and expertise and training, do those type injuries indicate to you, based on your expertise and training, a particular type trauma that has occurred to cause those injuries?

Peretti: Well, my practice these type injuries I have seen in children that are held by the ears who are forced to perform oral sex. They can also be due to putting a hand over the mouth to cause the injuries to the mucosal surface of the lips or they could be by grabbing someone by the ear.and just pulling.

Davis: And there were injuries consistent with that found in your autopsy on Michael Moore, is that correct?

Peretti: Yes, that’s correct.

Davis: Okay. Now, Doctor, your report at the end has what are called a list–a list of pathologic diagnoses. Is that kind of a general run-down of what you found in your autopsy?

Peretti: Yes, it is a summary of the anatomical findings.

Now here’s Jessie.

M-I did not pay any attention to them, I just keep on hitting that one.

B-Okay and was that the boy that had the boy scout uniform on?

M-Yea

B-Now, what did Jas, what did you see Jason and Damien do to the other two?

M-Well, Damien was going to screw one of them.

B-When you say he was going to screw him what did you see him do?

M-He was going to stick his penis in that little boys behind but as far as I could see he didn‘t.

B-When you say he was going to what did you see Damien do and what happened between him and that little boy as far as that goes?

M-I do not understand

B-You said that he was going to screw the little boy or stick his penis in his behind, what did you see Damien do?

M-He did not do it, he was going to it then he didn‘t.

B-What was it that Damien did that made you think that he was going to do that?

M-Well, I seen the boys pants down.

B-How did his pants get down?

M-He pulled them.

B-Who pulled them?

M-Damien

B-And did the, was the boy running when that happened or was he trying to get away or what was happening?

M-He was kicking his feet.

B-And what else did Damien do besides pull his pants down, the little boys pants down, that made you think that he was going to screw him?

M-What do you mean?

B-What did you see, you said that Damien pulled his pants, the little boys pants down did you see Damien do anything else that indicated that he was going to screw him?

M-No

B-Did Damien have his clothes on or did he at that point?

M-He had his pants unbuttoned.

Here’s some of what he told his lawyer concerning this.

STIDHAM: Did you see Damien or Jason actually stick their penis in one of the little boys‘ butts?

MISSKELLEY: Going to it. I don’t know if they stuck it in all the way or what, but I seen them, you know, as far as I couldn’t see no more.

STIDHAM: Did Damien ever get his penis inside the little boy?

MISSKELLEY: I couldn’t say.

STIDHAM: You just don’t know?

MISSKELLEY: I just don’t know, period.

Jessie also described this.

STIDHAM: What did Jason do with him after he took his clothes off?

(Page 66)

MISSKELLEY: He laid them down beside him. Beside the boy.

STIDHAM: Laid his clothes beside the boy?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affitmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Then what happened?

MISSKELLEY: To my knowledge, what I seen. It was hitting.

STIDHAM: Hitting the boy?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affitmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: And then what happened?

MISSKELLEY: He stuck his finger up the boy’s butt.

STIDHAM: Up the Moore boy’s butt, the Cub Scout?

MISSKELLEY: I guess that’s him.

STIDHAM: Then what happened?

MISSKELLEY: That’s about it. The boy was unconscious.

There was also mention of injuries to the mouths of the victims.

Davis: Doctor, in your experience as a medical examiner when you see injuries to the ears and injuries to the inside surface of the mouth, what does that indicate to you in a person that’s eight years old and has died this type of death?

Peretti: Well, there’s a number of possibilities but commonly when we see the ears contused on both sides or bruised with all lying fine linear scratches…

Stidham: Your Honor, I’m going to object. May I approach the bench?

The Court: [unintelligible] Well, rephrase your question. I think that is probably overbroad.

Davis: Doctor, let me ask you, have you seen–in your past experenience as a medical examiner, have you seen similar injuries to the ears of children?

Peretti: Yes, I have.

Davis: Okay. And in those cases were they frequently also accompanied by injuries to the child’s mouth?

Peretti: Yes, they were.

Davis: Okay. And based on your past experience and expertise and training, do those type injuries indicate to you, based on your expertise and training, a particular type trauma that has occurred to cause those injuries?

Peretti: Well, my practice these type injuries I have seen in children that are held by the ears who are forced to perform oral sex. They can also be due to putting a hand over the mouth to cause the injuries to the mucosal surface of the lips or they could be by grabbing someone by the ear.and just pulling.

Jessie not only described oral sex but stated that they put shirts in the mouths of the victims, which could account for their injuries.

STIDHAM: Tell me about that. Tell me what happened. You seen it, right?

MISSKELLEY: Right, Jason got on top of him and started hitting on him. That little boy was squirming, and then Jason stuck the – I’m going to say he stuck his hand over- you know a shirt and then covered his hand over his mouth over the shirt, and he just started kept on hitting him and that boy didn’t move no more,

He’d consistently mention the shirts being stuffed in the victims’ mouths in his confession statements.

Jessie also described in detail one of the sticks used to commit the crime.

STIDHAM: Was he carrying a stick?

MISSKELLEY: He carried a stick.

STIDHAM: That day?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: What kind of stick was it?

MISSKELLEY: Part of a tree.

STIDHAM: Was it a long limb or a big Stick, like a long and skinny, or big and fat? Or –

MISSKELLEY: It was – I would say it was long.

STIDHAM: Was it any of those sticks that they introduced into your trial the other day?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah.

STIDHAM: Which one was it?

MISSKELLEY: That one that you was holding up and that had the bark off of it.

STIDHAM: Had someone carved it?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: Long and skinny?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: That was the one Damien was carrying that day?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Where did he pick it up at?

MISSKELLEY: He carried it with him. From Lakeshore.

The one Jessie describes is the one on the far right.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/pics/sticks.jpg

Aside from this Jessie would describe the fact that the victims had their pants pulled off of them inside out, and were not unbuttoned, which was true.

STIDHAM: Then what happened?

MISSKELLEY: Then they took off their uh, their pants – Jason – Damien and them took off them little boys pants.

STIDHAM: How did they take them off?

(Page 51)

MISSKELLEY: Pulled them. Just pulled them completely off. They (Pause – knock on door).

STIDHAM: Hold on just a second. Okay.

MISSKELLEY: They didn’t unsnap them or nothing. They just jerked.

STIDHAM: Pulled them from the legs? By their feet and pulled the legs off – the pants? Or did they –

MISSKELLEY: They was inside out. They pulled them from the top, just – just jerked them off.

STIDHAM: You sure?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Who did that?

MISSKELLEY: Damien.

Here’s what was stated about the clothing when they were discovered in the police report.

Sgt. Allen – Recovered a Partial Shoe print.
West Side of Bank where #2 – Body Was located.
Near #1 Body – 3 – pair of Jeans were located.
[the word “Boy” is crossed out] Cub Scout – Blue / Yellow
Cap Located.
also three pairs of tennis Shoes located by #1 Body.

PAGE 4 OF 6

Left Shoe – Tennis (CUGA – Shoe) – Black / Purple Shoe /
Black lace is still there.
Rest of the tennis Shoes located do not have shoe strings in
them.
Cub Scouts of america Shirt Located in Creek Close to Body
#1
– 1 Pair of Jeans found is a Rustler Brand – 7 – Slim Turned
inside Out.
Cub Scout Shirt – Size 8
1-Pair of Nientendo Super Mario Underwear – Located Size 6
Located Close to Body #1
1 – Under Shirt – Blk / White – White designs – turned
inside out
Located Close to #1 Body
1 – Size 8 – Coast Highway Brand – Stripped Shirt –
Surfboard design – turned inside out.
Located Close to Body #1

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/csn.html

A photo of one of the pants, which was found just as Jessie described it.

HRcourtjeans

It was inside out, and still buttoned and zipped up.

Jessie also would describe what the victims’ bikes looked like.

STIDHAM: How many bikes were there?

MISSKELLEY: Two.

STIDHAM: What color were they?

MISSKELLEY: Red – and uh, – a light color, white color, greenish color, somewhere in there –

(Page 43)

STIDHAM: Greenish? Or white?

MISSKELLEY: I’m going to say greenish. It was real light.

STIDHAM: So –

MISSKELLEY: It wasn’t a boy’s bike.

STIDHAM: Wasn’t?

MISSKELLEY: No.

Indeed the one bike was a girls bike, just as Jessie stated.

bikes

Jessie would also state that the boys were unconscious when they were tied up, which was again also true. Another coincidense?

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: So, what else, what else left is there, after that?
*A129 MISSKELLEY: Then they laid the knife down beside them and I saw them tying them up and then that’s when I left.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Were the boys conscience (sic) or were they
*A130 MISSKELLEY: They were unconscious then
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Unconscious

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown would state that it was her belief that Michael Moore was already unconscious when he was tied up, because there was no evidence that he struggled or pulled at his ligitures.

Jessie’s also consistent about injuries to Michael’s head and face.

MISSKELLEY: No, I didn’t – until Damien told me, “Get him.” And then that’s when I went back after him and got him. Then I brought him back and that’s when –

STIDHAM: What was the boy wearing that you went and got and brought back?

MISSKELLEY: Uh – to my knowledge, I’m going to say, the one – I don’t know their names, you know, to my knowledge, the one that was wearing, uh, like a boy scout uniform. I don’t know, you know, that’s to my knowledge. That’s what one of them was wearing, I don’t know which boy.

STIDHAM: Damien told you to go get him and bring him back?

(Page 48)

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh, (Affirmatively indicating) after I done hit him first.

STIDHAM: Where did you hit him at?

MISSKELLEY: Where did I hit him at? The head.

STIDHAM: And was anybody cut or bleeding at that point?

MISSKELLEY: No. I was – I was too drunk I couldn’t hardly do nothing.

STIDHAM: You sure?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating) I – when I drink I can’t hit hard or anything.

STIDHAM: Damien told you to get the Moore boy and bring him back, and you did that?

MISSKELLEY: He – he said – go get him. So I brought him back and just started hitting him some more.

STIDHAM: Was you holding the Moore boy while this was going on?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: What happened to him?

MISSKELLEY: Well, he – he – he was knocked out.

STIDHAM: Who knocked him out?

MISSKELLEY: I did, I was hitting him. Just hitting him, steady hitting him.

STIDHAM: Did he fall down and not get up?

MISSKELLEY: He just fell down and didn’t get up. I just – I knew he wasn’t dead, cause I, you know I went over there and touched him and he was still breathing.

During his original confession he’d try to insist that he was just a witness to the crime, and that he only helped in the murders, while his friends actually committed them. He’d even admit to his involvement with his lawyer.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_stidham_8_19_93.html

Notice the date at the beginning of the confession.

DAN STIDHAM: Today’s date is August 19, 1993. Myself, Dan Stidham, at the Clay County Detention Center in Piggot, Arkansas, and in the room with me is Jessie Misskelley, Jr. Approximate time is 11:00 a.m.

That’s months after his original confession. If Jessie was innocent, he should have recanted, but instead months later he’s still insisting that he was involved. His lawyer even talks to him about taking a plea deal, which Jessie agrees to.

JESSIE: I – I – I don’t want to do too much time. You know, I don’t want to be lying to an attorney.

STIDHAM: Well.

JESSIE: You know I understand how, about what you’re saying.

STIDHAM: Do you understand that this is a very, very serious situation? There’s those little boys here are dead, one of which was mutilated, and that a jury is going to take that very serious, do you understand that?

JESSIE: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Do you also understand that if the prosecutor makes a recommendation of a certain number of years, that it’s probably going to be a lot of years, it’s not going to be five, ten years, it’s probably going to be more like forty.

JESSIE: Yeah, I understand.

STIDHAM: Now, if you got a 40-year sentence, you wouldn’t serve 40 years, you would serve probably half – 20 years. You’re 18 now and in 20 years you’ll be 38, but at least you’ll be getting out someday. Cause the chance even on a 40 year sentence that you may only serve l0 years. But if you go down there, keep your nose clean and don’t get into any trouble you can get out. See, we’re not talking about just going for a week or two or a month or two or a year or two, we’re talking about a lot of years here, Jessie, and, you know, if the prosecutor comes back and says uh – I don’t know that he will, he may not make another offer – he said life in prison was his best offer, take it or leave it. Uh, but if he comes back and says it’ll be 40 years, or 50 years, would you be willing to consider that?

JESSIE: I don’t want to spend, you know, almost all my life in jail. You know, in prison.

STIDHAM: I don’t want you to either. You know, on a 40 year sentence you might serve 12 years, 15 years, uh, you know that’s a long time, but at least you’re going to get out. If it goes the other way and that jury, I’m telling you Jessie, that jury may…(end of tape.)

STIDHAM: Jessie, the tape ran out. It’s now 11:37. The tape ran out and the last part of our conversation didn’t get recorded. We had talked about we think the prosecutor has made this offer of life without – life with the chance of getting parole, and let me plead first degree murder. You indicated to me that you wouldn’t be willing to consider that – somewhere in the regular 50-year sentence knowing that you would have to serve all of that, of course, is that correct?

JESSIE: Yes.

STIDHAM: So, when you say 25 or 20 or 25 years, that’d be the equivalent of a 40 or 50 year sentence. You understand that, right. Under the current guidelines, under a
Class Y felony you’d have to serve half of your sentence before you’re eligible for parole. So, on a 30 years sentence you’re looking at 15 years, on a 40-year sentence you’re looking at 20 years, and on a 50-year sentence you’re looking at 25. Do you understand that?

JESSIE: (inaudible)

STIDHAM: So, what you’re saying then is that you want me to tell the prosecutor you’re not interested in the life sentence, but you would be interested in a number of years sentence, and you would be willing to consider somewhere around 40 to 50 years? That’s what you’re saying?

JESSIE: Right.

STIDHAM: Okay. So that – that’s what I’m going to do then, is I’m going to tell the prosecutor that we’re not interested in his offer, and, uh, we’ll go from there. Okay? I’m going to talk to your dad, and I’m going to get him back up to talk to you and the three of us will sit down and talk about this, and, because if we don’t get a deal made we’re going to have to start getting ready for trial. You’re doing real good. You’re not talking to anybody and you haven’t been talking to anybody in here have you? About the case? Don’t do it, it’s just, you need to maintain your silence, don’t talk to anybody about the case but me and Mr. Crow, and right now, under the circumstances, things seem to be going pretty well. The confession is what’s hurting us right now. And we’ll get back with the prosecutor and talk to him and when I hear from him back I’ll get your dad up here and the three of us will sit down and talk about it some more, okay?

JESSIE: All right.

STIDHAM: Okay. Well, it’s 11:40, on August 19, 1993. And I conclude this tape now. Oh. One more question. If you seen a picture of this stick that you said Damien carried around, would you recognize it?

JESSIE: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

STIDHAM: Okay. All right, uh, I’ll be back in touch with you in a few days.

At trial the prosecution would state the following concerning Jessie’s confession.

“Well, ultimately, the defendant admitted to the officers that he was present when this occurred and at that point, the officers began to tape record the entire statement and at that point, of course, you will, you’ll hear everything that the defendant said after that point, uhh, related to this case.

Now, the defendant, through his jury selection process, has asked you questions about false confessions and that kind of thing. Well, we expect the proof’s going to show that this defendant confessed, that he was not coerced, uhh, the, we do not contend that the proof’s going to show that every word that came out of his mouth was the truth. Uh, we expect the proof’s going to show that at times he was confused, at times he was trying to lessen his own involvement, and tell you that he was less involved than he really was.

But after you hear the tape recording of his confession, after you consider the other evidence that corroborates the things that he said in his confession, and after you consider the fact that this defendant told the officers that one of the boys had been cut in the face, and only one of them, that one of the boys had been cut in the genital area, after you consider that and the fact that that was not public knowledge, that was information that was only within the police department, I expect that you are going to find that this statement this defendant gave was his statement about what he saw, I think you’ll find that he lessened his own involvement, and I submit ladies and gentlemen, that the proof is going to show that this defendant was an accomplice to Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin in the commission of these horrifying murders, and I submit that at the appropriate time, after all of the evidence is in, after all of the witnesses have testified, after all of the exhibits are in, after Judge Burnett has instructed you as to the law in this case, that we will come back before you and we will ask you to return your verdict of guilty on three counts of capital murder. Thank you.”

All through the trial Jessie would also keep his head down, as if he was guilty.

Jessie

Then after being convicted he’d be escorted to a police car where he’d admit guilt while being transported.

Jessie2

To: Inspector Gitchell
West Memphis Police Department

From: Clay County Sheriffs Department

The following statement is a narrative as told to Deputy James Lindsey and myself. This statement is not in chronological order as it was given by Jessie but has been put in order to the best of our ability with knowledge of your case. Your department may have knowledge of this in its entirety, if not, mabey it will provide a little insight as to what took place on May 5th 1993.

Jail Incident Report

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 squriming 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.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html

Jessie’s own father would even make a statement saying his son might have seen what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRtEdkoun1s

After the trial, Jessie then confessed to a cellmate.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/micjo.html

October 24, 94

Mr. Brent Davis,
I am forwarding this letter to your office simply because you were the only prosecuting attorney that I was able to get the address of. After reading this, I hope you will bring it to the attention of the appropiate persons.
I may have some useful information for the prosecution in the upcoming appeal of Jessie Misskelley. Who, as you may know is one of three defendants accused of murdering the three young boys in West Memphis.
I have known Misskelley since June 9th, 1994. We are currently housed together in the A.D.C. Diagnostic Unit, Special Programs Unit.
At several different occasions, Misskelley and I have talked extensively about many facts of the case. Among them, Misskelley told me that they, the defendants, cut the testicales of one of the children off. That Jason Baldwin, one of the defendants, had sex with one of the children after he had been killed. And that Damien Echols, one of the defendants, said a prayer before they threw the boys in a ditch.
Misskelley, also told me that they, the defendants, left a night gown at the scene so that it would look like women had committed the crime. He says now that he is trying to blame the parents of one of the children.
Misskelley also told me that his confession is the only evidence that the prosecution has. And that he and his attorney are trying to have that dismissed.
I once asked Misskelley what were the names of the three boys. He laughed for some time, and then said he could only remember one of them.
Mr. Davis, please do everything in your power to keep Misskelley behind bars for the rest of his life. He is a very cold, morbid person.
I thank you for your time
Michael Johnson

Jessie would then again confess to his lawyer, giving this statement.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

He’d provide the broken Evan Williams bottle from the night of the murder there.

He’d then confess yet again, giving even more details to the crime.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

His attorney Dan Stidham would even plead with him not to make this statement with prosecutors, claiming that he had new evidence that proved he was innocent. Jessie would also acknowledge that he wasn’t getting anything in return for his statement, and that he wasn’t mistreated in any way.

STIDHAM: Before you get started with that I would like to make a reference in regard to what I have and have not advised Mr. Misskelley of tonight.

DAVIS: You might need to speak up.

STIDHAM: Ok. Jessie can you hear me.

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I can hear you.

STIDHAM: I want you to listen very carefully to what I’ve got to tell you, ok. I told you earlier that I have some new evidence, is that correct ?

MISSKELLEY: That’s what you said.

STIDHAM: And I told you that this new evidence may ..ah.. that I plan on filing a motion for a new trial and that the Court could possibly grant you a new trial based on this evidence.

MISSKELLEY: That’s what you said.

STIDHAM: Ok, I also told you that giving a statement was against my advise and wishes.

MISSKELLEY: That’s what you said.

STIDHAM: Ok. I am advising you that I don’t think it’s a good idea for you to give this statement. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM: OK. Do you understand that Mr. Crow is giving you the same advise ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM: You need to speak up a little louder Jessie.

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

_________: One second, I may have to fix this.

STIDHAM: So you understand that my advise to you is that you not say anything. Do you understand that?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: And your 18 years old and you understand that I’ve asked for a Mental Evaluation.

MISSKELLEY: I don’t know if you did or not.

STIDHAM: I asked the Court if I could have an oppurtunity to get you the Psychiatric help that you askef for when I was down in Pine Bluff on Tuesday. Do you remember asking for that?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM; You asked me to get you a Psychiatrist?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I said I need help.

STIDHAM: And that’s why I asked the Judge for the opportunity to get you that evaluation before you make any statement. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: And you also understand that again it’s my advise that you not talk or give any kind of statement here tonight ..ah.. until we have a chance to file a motion for a new trial and get your Psychiatric Evaluations complete. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM: And it is your decision to go ahead and make this statement anyway ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: You still want to give a statement despite my advise and counsel?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, cause I want something done about it.

STIDHAM: Ok. So ..um.. is there any part of what I just told you that you don’t understand ?

MISSKELLEY: No.

STIDHAM: You understand everything?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: And you want to make my statement regardless of my advise against doing so?

MISSKELLEY: Yep.

STIDHAM: Do you want to have an opportunity to talk to anyone else, father or anyone before you make a statement.

MISSKELLEY: I might need to talk to my father. But I’m not for sure.

STIDHAM: It’s your decision, your 18 years old.

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I am.

STIDHAM: Do you want to talk to your father or not ?

MISSKELLEY: No I can go ahead and do it.

STIDHAM: Do you realize that once you make this statement there is no turning back?

MISSKELLEY: I know there’s no turning back.

STIDHAM: Anything you want to add to that Greg.

CROW: Jessie. You realize that I don’t always agree with everything that Dan says but this time I agree with him. I don’t think you should say anything. Do you know that? Are you aware of the fact that I don’t think you should say anything ?

MISSKELLEY: Yea, I understand what your saying.

CROW: Ok, along as you understand that. But you want to anyway, is that right ?

MISSKELLEY: Right cause I want something done.

CROW: Ok.

CALVIN: Let me ask you a couple of questions before you get into it ..ah.. Jessie when you were brought here ..ah.. since you’ve been here with the Deputy Sheriff. I think you got here about 5:00, is that correct?

MISSKELLEY: Somewhere around 5:00.

CALVIN: Ok, now nobody has questioned you anything about what happened is that correct?

MISSKELLEY: Nope.

CALVIN: Ok, How have we treated you ?

MISSKELLEY: Nice.

CALVIN: Ok, has anybody been rude to you or anything ?

MISSKELLEY: No.

CALVIN: Now we got you a Cheeseburger Sandwich and I asked Mr. Crow on the telephone if that was alright and he said that was perfectly alright. And I went and purchased you a Cheeseburger, is that correct ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.

CALVIN: And you had a few, I think I gave you a couple of diet Cokes. I don’t know if you drank’m all but you drank those, is that correct?

MISSKELLEY: Yes

CALVIN: But you haven’t been promised anything for your testimony and you want to give it free and voluntarily.

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

CALVIN : And nobody’s mistreating you?

MISSKELLEY: Nope

CALVIN: Ok.

From the context of this, the only conclusion one can draw, is that Jessie Misskelley was involved in this crime, and was trying to down play how involved he really was.

While on the stand Gary Gitchell would testify to the following

“There’s always a time in a defendant’s statement – – that in Jessie’s case I feel like he did tell us a good bit of truth, but then they also lessen their activity in a statement. That’s just common, at least in my twenty years career.”

Now what actually happened out there that day? It’s hard to say 100%, due to Jessie’s deliberate deceptions in portions of his statements, but based on the facts, and what Jessie would choose to mention this is it.

The boys are some how lured into the woods. They often played there, but on this day, Damien, Jessie, and Jason were there as well. They arrived there with some alcohol, because this was a popular area for teens to drink and do drugs.

It was possible that Jessie had been aware that something was going to happen to the boys that day. You have to consider a few statements by Damien and Aaron Hutcheson.

First you have this statement by Damien.

DAMIEN STATED THAT HE FIGURED THAT THE KILLER KNEW THE KIDS WENT INTO THE WOODS AND EVEN ASKED THEM TO COME OUT TO THE WOODS. HE STATED THAT THE BOYS WERE NOT BIG, NOT SMART, AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO CONTROL. HE ALSO FELT THE KILLER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THE BOYS SCREAMING DUE TO IT BEING IN THE WOODS AND CLOSE TO THE EXPRESSWAY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE KILLER PROBABLY WANTED TO HEAR THE SCREAMING.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/dwe.html

So, Damien had told the police in his interview that he felt that the killer knew the boys, and had lured them out to the woods with a ruse. From his statement it was like he had sat down and thought about this long and hard. He even further mentions how good a location Robin Hood Hills was. That no one could hear the boys screaming in there because it was in the woods and because there was an expressway near by. From that it sounds like he’s saying that this location was chosen for a reason. He even mentions how easy it would be to control the children.
“HE STATED THAT THE BOYS WERE NOT BIG, NOT SMART, AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO CONTROL.”
What’s interesting is that there was a connection between the boys and their killers. Aaron Hutcheson, was a friend of the victims, and his babysitter was Jessie Misskelley. Interesting right?
That’s correct Jessie had a connection to the boys.

In his confession in the back of a police car Jessie made this statement.

“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.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html

Did you notice the part where he says that he feels that his friends tricked him? Tricked him into what? Killing? Helping them get their victims?

What gets even more interesting is there was a sighting of possibly a fourth child entering the woods with the boys that day.

“On 5-5-93 at approx. 6:30 P.M. Bryan got off work from Don’s Super Shine and was on his way to his mothers at 1823 Goodwin – went to Barton to Goodwin – turned on Goodwin by East Jr. High. At the dead end of Goodwin by N. 14th he observed 4 W/Ms – 1 was carrying a skate board and 2 bikes going into the dead end toward Robin Hood Hills. Just saw the backs of the boys but from the back one looked like Steven Branch because of the blond spiked hair. [After lunch with mom on 5/6,] he left and went to 14th + Barton and told John Mark Byers what he had seen. They asked if he would help them look – he went and got a 3 wheeler + helped search.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/bwoody.html

The day of the murders, Aaron was supposed to come along with his friends, but his mother wouldn’t let him, but if 4 children were seen then possibly Aaron did try to tag along.

Aaron would give a statement suggesting that Jessie was the one who lured the boys out to the woods that day.

GITCHELL: OKAY, UM, YOU WANT TO START JUST START UP FROM THE BEGINNING AND TELL ME WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OKAY? OKAY GO AHEAD JUST TELL ME FROM THE BEGINNING?

AARON: TUESDAY UM, JESSIE TOLD ME THAT UM, SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO MY FRIENDS

GITCHELL: OKAY, JESSIE TOLD YOU THAT?

AARON: UH-HUH (YES

GITCHELL: THAT’S UM, YOU KNOW JESSIE’S LAST NAME ?

AARON: MISSKELLEY

GITCHELL: OKAY, UM, DID HE TELL YOU WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?

AARON: UH-UH (NO)

GITCHELL: DID YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OR DID YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN?

AARON: (inaudible)

GITCHELL: OKAY, UM, SO WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT HE TOLD YOU TUESDAY THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, SO TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT, DID YOU GO ANYWHERE OR JUST GO AHEAD AND TELL ME ABOUT IT TELL ME THE STORY

AARON: I UM, HE TOLD ME THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO MY FRIENDS / / / / / HE SAID WAS THAT, HE SAID ALRIGHT ABOUT AFTER THAT HE SAID UM, YOU GET YOUR FRIENDS AND I’LL GET MINE AND WE GO DOWN THERE AND DO SOMETHING

GITCHELL: OKAY, AND WHEN WAS YOU SUPPOSE TO MEET DOWN THERE?

AARON: ON WEDNESDAY

GITCHELL: WEDNESDAY, OKAY, NOW THE WEDNESDAY YOUR TALKING ABOUT IS THAT, IS THAT THE DAY BEFORE THAT THE POLICE FOUND YOUR FRIENDS

AARON: IT WAS THE DAY, THAT THEY GOT KILLED

GITCHELL: OKAY THE WEDNESDAY THE DAY THEY GOT KILLED OKAY, UM, SO DID YOU GO DOWN THERE? YOU DIDN’T GO TO ROBIN HOOD?

AARON: I DIDN’T GO BUT UM, MICHAEL, CHRIS, AND THEM THEY ASK MY MOM IF I COULD GO. AND MY MOM SAID NO, I GOT, I WENT HOME AND GOT ON MY BIKE AND WENT DOWN TO ROBIN HOOD

GITCHELL: OKAY, SO YOUR MOTHER PICKED YOU, YOUR MOTHER PICK YOU UP SCHOOL IS THAT RIGHT?

AARON: (inaudible)

GITCHELL: OKAY, AND SHE WOULDN’T LET YOU GO DOWN THERE, SO YOU WENT HOME WITH YOUR MOTHER, AND LIVE, AND WHERE DO YOU LIVE AT NOW?

AARON: HIGHLAND PARK

GITCHELL: SO, YOUR TELLING ME YOU GOT ON YOUR BICYCLE IS THAT RIGHT?

AARON: UH-HUH (YES)

GITCHELL: AND WHERE DID YOU GO TO?

AARON: ROBIN HOOD

GITCHELL: OKAY, UM, DID ANYONE GO WITH YOU TO ROBIN HOOD? OKAY, UM, DID YOU MEET ANYBODY WHEN YOU GOT TO ROBIN HOOD?

AARON: UH-UH (NO)

GITCHELL: WERE YOU THE FIRST ONE THERE?

AARON: NO, UM, IS JUST SEEN MICHAEL AND CHRIS THERE

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/aaronh.html

While most of what Aaron says should be taken with a grain of salt, there may be some factual information within his statements. Unfortunately his mother corrupted much of them by filling the boy’s head with false information.

When questioned about the murders the police played a tape recording of Aaron for Jessie to hear. They only played a small clip, and it had a frightful reaction with Jessie. He actually broke down crying afterword. Why? What is it about Aaron that would make him break down?

Why would the voice of a child he knew make him cry? Remember what Jessie said in the back of the cop car?

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

Jessie was also strangely insistent that Aaron wasn’t there.

JESSIE: Because, uh, Aaron always talked about, you know, that he knows everything about the killing and stuff, and Vicki always tells him to shut up cause he don’t know cause he wasn’t there.

STIDHAM: You know he wasn’t there?

JESSIE: Right.

STIDHAM: He told the police that he was there hiding in the trees and seen it all happen.

JESSIE: He – He lies a lot.

STIDHAM: Course he also said that you. . . .

JESSIE: Because Vickie, Vickie don’t let him go nowhere. He stays in that trailer park.

STIDHAM: There’s no way that he could have been there that day?

JESSIE: Nope.

For a guy who’s supporters clam is innocent he sure knows who was and wasn’t there.

Jessie had possibly been the one who told the boys to come out to the woods that day. He may have told Aaron to get his friends together, and these bigger kids would go and play with the little kids out in Robin Hood Hills. If that’s the case, then these murders would not have happened if Jessie hadn’t lured them out. It was the perfect place to murder three children just as Damien said. Especially if you wanted to hear your victims scream…

“HE ALSO FELT THE KILLER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THE BOYS SCREAMING DUE TO IT BEING IN THE WOODS AND CLOSE TO THE EXPRESSWAY.”

From that it sounds like they chose this location for a reason, and Damien confirms it…

“HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE KILLER PROBABLY WANTED TO HEAR THE SCREAMING.”

Jessie also made some odd statements to the police suggesting planning when they first questioned him. This is from the reports.

JESSIE JR. THEN STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A CALL FROM JASON BALDWIN AND THAT HE A DAMIEN WERE TOGETHER BECAUSE HE HEARD DAMIEN IN THE BACK GROUND OF THE CONVERSATION. THE CALL WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO “IT” AND WHEN JESSIE STATED THAT HE HAD TO WORK DAMIEN HAD SPOKEN UP IN THE BACKGROUND SAYING THAT THEY GOING TO GET SOME GIRLS TOO AND THAT JESSIE NEEDED TO COME ALONG. JESSIE STATED THAT HE MADE AN EXCUSE THAT HE HAD TO WORK AND HUNG UP THE PHONE WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING ELSE. JESSIE STATED THAT LATER THAT NIGHT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM JASON STATING THAT THE HAD DONE IT. JESSIE STATED THAT HER HEARD DAMIEN IN THE BACK GROUND AND THAT DAMIEN HAD SAID “WE DID IT. WE DID IT. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO NOW. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF SOMEBODY SAW US.” JESSIE STATED THAT HE THEN KNEW THAT DAMIEN AND JESSIE HAD KILLED THE BOYS THAT DAMIEN HAD BEEN STALKING.

So, the boys may have been lured into the woods by Jessie that day. He however claims it was Damien that lured them in his statements.

MISSKELLEY: All I know is I heard these little kids holler.

DAVIS: Ok. And what happened at that point?

MISSKELLEY: And Damien started making some noises to get their attention and they come over where we was at.

DAVIS: When you say he made noises to get their attention, what, waht’d he do?

MISSKELLEY: Holer a little bit.

DAVIS: Ok. And when they came over what happened?

MISSKELLEY: And then Ja, Damien jumped on’m. And them other two (2) started beating on Damien and me and Jason jumped on’m.

DAVIS: Do you know which was Damien jumped on?

MISSKELLEY: ..um.. one of’m had blond hair. I don’t know which one.

DAVIS: Ok. Which one’s were they, which two (2) was it that jumped on Damien when he jumped on the other one?

MISSKELLEY: I can’t, I can’t remember that.

DAVIS: What happened at that point? Damien jumps on one and the other two (2) jump on him, what happens next?

MISSKELLEY: Me and Jason jump out and grabbed’m.

DAVIS: Alright. Who did you grab?

MISSKELLEY: ..um.. the one that had a, a blue boyscout.

DAVIS: Ok. Who did Jason grab, which, what did that boy looked like that Jason grabbed?

MISSKELLEY: I can’t remember. I remember the one I grabbed.

DAVIS: Ok. What was that boy wearing.

MISSKELLEY: I can’t remember, I was too messed up to remember that.

DAVIS: You said something about a blue or about a boyscout something. Was one of’m wearing a uniform?

MISSKELLEY: Something with the boyscouts on it.

DAVIS: Ok. Now when you grabbed one and Jason grabbed one what happened next?

MISSKELLEY: We started hitting’m.

DAVIS: With what ?

MISSKELLEY: Fist at first.

DAVIS: Ok. Where describe to me what Ja, what you saw Jason do?

MISSKELLEY: He first he cut one of’m on a face on his left side just a little bit like a scratch. Then ..ah.. he went to the other one and got on top of him, started hitting him and then pull one of’m pants down and get on top of’m and cut’m.

So, they possibly lured the boys in some how. Either Jessie or Damien, then they jumped the boys, beat them, and cut Stevie on the face with a knife scratching him. They beat the boys with fists and sticks, knocking them out. They also raped them.

They also bound the victims at some point after the initial sexual assaults, and then possibly continued raping them.

After awhile they’d even go back and mutilate Stevie.

MISSKELLEY: Then he went ever there towards – with Damien – that’s before that boy get his face cut. Then he went over there with Damien and cut that boy’s face on the left side.

STIDHAM: You told me before that that happened before?

MISSKELLEY: I mean, after – he didn’t cut him – he, you know, scratched him, then he went back. And then sliced him. I’m going to say slice.

Jessie would claim that Damien even drank blood from Stevie’s wounds.

They’d also go and mutilate Chris Byers, cutting off his genitals. In the Michael Carson statement, Baldwin allegedly confessed while in jail to having taken the genitals and sucking blood out of them. They even played with the severed testicles.

This is from Carson’s courtroom testimony.

A: He told me how he dismembered the kids, or I don’t exactly how many kids. He just said he dismembered them. He sucked the blood from the penis and scrotum and put the balls in his mouth.

Q: What was his demeanor when he made that statement? Was he laughing? Was he crying? Describe it for us.

A: He acted pretty serious about it.

Here’s also an interview with Carson.

BEALL: Okay. Tell me, what kind of gory details did he get into?
MICHAEL: He was saying like, okay, dismembered them, and sucking the blood out of their scrotums and playing with there balls in his mouth and stuff like that.
BEALL: Okay, did he say how many of the, how many balls, or, scrotums, or huh, whatever, penis’s that they played with?
MICHAEL: No.
BEALL: Tell me what else he told you.
MICHAEL: I, it’s been awhile, so all I pretty much remember is scrotums, playing with the penis, and putting their, kids balls in his mouth.
BEALL: Okay.
MICHAEL: When he mentioned that, that was pretty much the end of it. I laid my hands on the table and I jumped back and I left him sitting at the table, left him with the cards, and I went to my cell.
BEALL: Okay, did he mention anything about, huh, about the other two, Damien, or Misskelly, or anything along that line?
MICHAEL: No, he said, the thing he said really about Misskelly is that he was going to kick his ass when he got out.

Jessie would tell his cellmate Michael Johnson that Baldwin had raped Chris after the boy was already dead. They then dragged the bodies to the ditch and tossed them in. Jessie then left the scene and got sick while running home.

DETECTIVE RIDGE: You say that you got sick, from what you were seeing, did you throw up or anything?
*A212 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Where did you throw up at?
*A213 MISSKELLEY: I got a little bit ways out there. I took Seven up and then about a half a mile up the road, is when I threw up, and I had to quit running and (unintelligible) I threw up.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: When you left from there, did you leave running?
*A214 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html

Jason and Damien then crossed the pipe bridge and grabbed the bikes, tossing them in the water. They then headed back towards Jason’s place, and were spotted by witnesses while leaving. They then called Jessie up and asked him about why he left, and wondered if anyone saw them.

In the days following Jessie would even show remorse for his actions, despite that him and his friends may have planned this killing.

This here’s a quote from the book “Sexual homicide: Patterns and Motives by Robert Ressler, Ann W. Burgess, and John Douglas.

“Killing the victim moves the murderer to the reality of the murder. The victim may not die as in the fantasy or in the way the offender planned. He may have to use more violence, he may feel more frightened than he anticipated, or he may be startled by the fact that he feels excited. Some Murderers are exhilarated — they broke the rules, they killed. This feeling will induce some to kill again, while others will, in horror over what they have done, turn themselves in to the police.”

Jessie became scared, and as a result confessed. While Jessie was fearful and regretted what he did, his buddies were damn proud, and Damien would even make this admission in this court transcript.

22 Q. Question number 11, “How do you think the person
23 feels that did this?” The answer was, “Probably makes
24 them feel good, gives them power.” Now, I guess
25 Officer Ridge said that, too?
2817

1 A. No, I used common sense on that. If someone was
2 doing it, then they must have wanted to. And if they
3 were doing something they wanted to, it must have made
4 them happy. I don’t think they were doing it because
5 someone forced them to or because they didn’t want to.
6 Q. So in your mind the person that killed these three
7 kids, it is common sense that killing three
8 eight-year-olds would make you feel good?
9 A. Whoever did it, it must have.
10 Q. Okay. And it gives them power. That’s also
11 another common sense perspective from you?
12 A. Pretty much.
13 Q. Now, when you say, “gives them power,” is that
14 based on what you have read in these books?
15 A. No, it had nothing to do with that, just the crime
16 itself.
17 Q. Killing three eight-year-olds gives you power. I
18 don’t understand that. Explain that to me.
19 A. They probably thought, well, that they were like
20 overcoming other humans or something.

In ending this post consider again the words from Jessie’s cellmate.

I once asked Misskelley what were the names of the three boys. He laughed for some time, and then said he could only remember one of them.
Mr. Davis, please do everything in your power to keep Misskelley behind bars for the rest of his life. He is a very cold, morbid person.

Defining the Crime

Now that we know all the background on what happened in this case, as laid out in the “Understanding the Crime” post, we can decide what sort of individual committed this crime.

https://thewm3revelations.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/understanding-the-crime/

To summarize our conclusions from that post, the facts led us to these conclusions.

We know that this was the crime scene and not a dump site.

We know that the victims were likely sexually assaulted.

We know the killer didn’t bring anything to tie the victims up with and instead improvised, by using the shoe laces.

We know that the victims were likely attacked with sticks, being beaten over the head. This would suggest that the killer also acquired a weapon at the crime scene. These injuries would also likely suggest a blitz style attack.

We know Michael Moore had likely tried to flee.

We know the victims died from multiple types of injuries.

We know that a knife was likely used to mutilate the victims.

We know the victims were also drowned.

We know a possible piece of evidence was some candle wax located on the shirt of one victim.

We know the killer both arrived at the scene, and left on foot.

We know that this was a popular area for children and teens to come hangout.

We know that the person involved in this crime has shown some traits of a disorganized offender.

And lastly, we know that there may have been more than one person involved in the commission of this crime.

Three different criminal profilers would give opinions on this case. The three profilers were Brent Turvey, Pat Brown, and John Douglas.

Turvey’s profile has more or less been discredited by Pat Brown’s analysis of the case, which heavily criticized Turvey as trying to custom fit his profile to the defense’s alternative suspect, John Mark Byers.  In his profile he suggests that Robin Hood Hills is a dump site and not where the victims were murdered, but the problem with that, is we know that’s not the case. John Douglas would even discredit Turvey by stating in his profile that it was where the murders occurred, and not a dump site.

Now since Turvey’s assessment is in question lets discuss the Douglas profile. His profile also seems to be custom fitted to a suspect. This time Terry Hobbs. In fact Douglas has gotten in trouble in the past for tailoring a profile to match a suspect. This was the Guy Paul Morin case, which occurred in Canada. At the time investigators there were working the murder of a girl named Christine Jessop, and had a few suspects, but wanted help from Douglas to possibly help them steer the investigation.

It was alleged that Douglas some how found out about one of the suspects, a man named Guy Paul Morin, who was a neighbor of the girl. With this information he tailored his profile to fit him. The investigators were so impressed that this profile just so happened to match a suspect in every way, that they pushed Morin as the top suspect.

Douglas then instructed the police that they should shake up the suspect and see what he does by releasing a profile to the media, and that this profile should match the suspect completely. So John then tailored a second profile that fit Morin even more closely than before. Then he gave this profile to the police who broadcast it on TV. When it was broadcast Morin’s father mentioned to him that it sounded just like him. This appeared to be a joke, but the police used that to suggest that Morin was guilty of the crime, and that even his family was suspecting him. Douglas also told them how to question the suspect, saying they should have a giant photo of a fingerprint in the room blown up nice and big to make it look like they had matched his prints to the crime. He also said they should put filing cabinets in the room with Morin’s name on it big enough for him to read, so as to give him the impression that they had a mountain of evidence against him, and thus he’d feel compelled to just give up and confess. The police would eventually arrest Morin, with many saying that they would never have done so had it not been for the brilliant, and spot on criminal profile which so closely matched him.

Here’s a link where you can read a little about this.

http://netk.net.au/Canada/Morin30.asp

Guy Paul Morin would spend several years behind bars proclaiming his innocence until DNA finally proved that he was just as he had always maintained, innocent. Christine Jessop’s brother would later accuse Douglas of having custom fitted the profile to match Morin, which had led the investigation astray.

http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc52.html

The Canadian courts at one point wanted Douglas to testify about his work on the case in light of the allegation that he tailored his profile.  However Douglas chose not to even reply to messages left by the courts, and since he wasn’t a Canadian citizen they couldn’t compel him to testify.

Here’s a quote from the first link about this matter.

“Commission counsel, and several parties to the Inquiry, wanted Douglas to be called as a witness. Commission counsel and staff spoke with Douglas’ representative several times. By letter dated June 18, 1997, Sandler renewed the Commission’s request that Douglas attend as a witness. As reflected in that letter, the summons issued by the Commission to Douglas could not be enforced in the United States. Though Douglas never specifically declined to testify here, there was no response to the requests for attendance made orally and in writing.”

So Mr. Douglas, just refused to answer questions about how he arrived at those opinions, and wasn’t going to admit to his unethical behavior, which had caused an innocent man to be sent to prison. He didn’t bother to go to Canada and confront these allegations that he sometimes tailors profiles to fit suspects. He just kept ducking it. John has even tried to explain away the DNA evidence insisting how closely Morin matched the profile.

One of the things he even wrote in the profile was that the perp liked music, and Jessop had just gotten a new flute. Her neighbor Guy Paul Morin was a clarinetist, and so she must have gone to show him her new flute. This was one of the things in the profile that led to the arrest.

You can read some of John’s own claims about this case here in his book Journey into Darkness, where he tip-toes around the fact that he still very much believes Morin is guilty. Even leaving things vague when he mentions if he still believes he’s guilty, by saying it’s for the courts to decide if Morin did it or not.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CFo6GM5i-W0C&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=%22guy+paul+morin%22+%22John+Douglas%22&source=bl&ots=1W6PkzDosT&sig=fMuBm4gA-k5CdffJxfuDQlrCWAM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIQ7Ub7rFIPW0gGP9oGABQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22guy%20paul%20morin%22%20%22John%20Douglas%22&f=false

Here he is in the book trying to explain away the semen not matching Morin.

“I also believe that so much time has passed, custody of evidence may have been compromised over the years and the crime scene, body, and clothing were in such a poor state to begin with that I would have serious doubts at this point about the infallibility of any scientific testing.

In addition, a number of sordid and very troubling revelations have come to light since the first trial, including the fact that Christine’s brother, Kenneth, three years older than she, and several of his friends had been sexually abusing her since she was four. Appalling as it is to contemplate, I don’t think we can be certain where the semen deposits in her underwear originated. The DNA evidence might just be a large red herring in this case, as occasionally happens.”

Now Douglas’ profile seems to have been fitted to resemble Terry Hobbs, the defense team’s current alternative suspect.

John also goes into a ramble, immediately talking about Satanic crimes in his profile claiming there’s never been a murderer who claimed to have Satanic motivations. This isn’t to suggest that this was a motive, but Douglas seems to ignore the Richard Ramirez case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRyRbJVqtGA

Ramirez has discussed his beliefs in numerous interviews on the matter, such as this one with true crime author Philip Carlo.

CARLO: Speaking of spirituality, let’s talk about Satanism. There’s been a lot in the press, Richard, about your devotion to and your affiliation with Satan. Can you tell a bit about what Satan means to you?
RAMIREZ: What Satan means to me…Satan is a stabilizing force in my life. It gives me a reason to be; it gives me…an excuse to rationalize. There is a part of me that believes he really does exist. I have my doubts, but we all do, about many things.

CARLO: When did you first turn away from—as I know you were brought up a—and turn to Satan?

RAMIREZ: From 1970—well, throughout my childhood and up to the time I was eighteen years old, I believe in God. Seventeen, eighteen years old. Then, for two or three years, I became sort of like an—I didn’t believe in anything. When I reached the age of twenty, twenty-one thereabouts, I met a guy in jail and, uh…he told me about Satan and I picked it up from there. I rad books and I studied and I examined who I was and what my feelings were.

Also, my actions. Just like the Hezbollah and different terrorist religious organizations around the—it is a driving force that motivates them to do things and they believe in it whole-heartedly. It had the same effect on my life.

CARLO: In other words, their spirituality was what was the driving force in their life, and Satan became, in a sense, your spirituality and the driving force behind you.
RAMIREZ: Yeah.

CARLO: Richard, do you believe that Satan helps people to be able to do things they wouldn’t normally do? For instance, in Matamoras, Mexico, Adolfo Constanzo killed many people and he was committing human sacrifices to protect the drug cartel down there from the police, and he feverently believed that Satan would protect him and so therefore made human sacrifices. Do you feel that kind of reasoning has any place—
RAMIREZ:— place in Satanism?

CARLO: Yeah.
RAMIREZ: I don’t know the structure of Hell itself, or demons or demonology, but I do know where you tamper with witchcraft, when you tamper with Satanism, be it voodoo—

CARLO: —Santeria—
RAMIREZ: Yeah, any type of sacrifices or contacting the spirits, you’re dealing with things that are very delicate—and dangerous. I myself am no warlock, I’m not a wizard. I’m not one of these types of individuals that knows his witchcraft from A to Z. but, I have read of instances where people end up getting killed and…u…arrested for tampering with the wrong demons and not using the right types of…uh…the right process of sacrifices and the right types of rituals. You have to know what you’re doing. Everything from ropes to chalices—

CARLO: Everything has to be done right.
RAMIREZ: Exactly. From what I know, certain symbols—like Pentagrams—are supposed to protect you from the demons themselves.

CARLO: Yeah. You were seen in court once with a Pentagram inside your hand and you held it up and showed it to the press and the audience. Why did you do that? Did you feel that it would protect you, or were you just making a statement that you were in alliance with the Devil?
RAMIREZ: Yes, it was a statement that I was in alliance with…the evil that is inherent in human nature.

Here Douglas, ignores other cases, suggesting that no such crime has ever happened, simply because there isn’t many on record with multiple killers.

Douglas also states this in his profile.

“This analysis is based upon information available at the time this report was prepared and assumes that the information provided was obtained through comprehensive, thorough, and well-planned investigation. Should any additional information or case materials become available at a later date those materials would be reviewed in order to determine whether they are germane to issues discussed herein. Subsequent to such a review, certain aspects of this analysis may be subject to modification or change.”

The information this profile was based on, was the defense claims of animal predation, which has already been discredited in previous posts. This profile also skips over any and all information pertaining to the sexual assault, as the defense was trying to insist the assault never took place in order to hurt the state’s case.

Naturally, as Douglas states, the profile would need “modification or change”.

Douglas would also say this, confirming that it was based on discredited defense arguments.

“Relative to instant case, this crime was presented by police and prosecutors as “satanic” and according to the medical examiner (“ME”) one particular victim was emasculated by the killer. The ME’s conclusion had a major impact and influence when initially analyzing the case relative to determining the offender’s primary motive. However, as set forth herein, the ME’s initial findings and conclusions according to one of America’s foremost forensic pathologist, Dr. Warner Spitz., M.D., and forensic scientist, Dr. Jon Nordby, P.H.D, were inaccurate. In their professional opinion all three victims were attacked post-mortem by some predatory animal.”

Douglas also cites defense attorney Dennis Riorden as providing him everything he needed to come to his opinions, thus skewing his perspective.

Douglas also jumps to the Satanic aspect that the defense has often used to try and trivialize the prosecutions case. In reality the prosecution seemed to believe the crime was likely a “Thrill Killing”, and would even question Damien Echols in court on the subject.

Q. Now, Officer Ridge has that when you were asked these questions that you say, “It was a thrill kill.”  Is that your words?

A. He asked me what did I think could be the possible motivation.

Q. Okay. And you indicated a thrill kill, is that right?

A. Right.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien2.html

Echols would also make this statement while on the stand.

22 Q. Question number 11, “How do you think the person
23 feels that did this?” The answer was, “Probably makes
24 them feel good, gives them power.” Now, I guess
25 Officer Ridge said that, too?
2817

1 A. No, I used common sense on that. If someone was
2 doing it, then they must have wanted to. And if they
3 were doing something they wanted to, it must have made
4 them happy. I don’t think they were doing it because
5 someone forced them to or because they didn’t want to.
6 Q. So in your mind the person that killed these three
7 kids, it is common sense that killing three
8 eight-year-olds would make you feel good?
9 A. Whoever did it, it must have.
10 Q. Okay. And it gives them power. That’s also
11 another common sense perspective from you?
12 A. Pretty much.
13 Q. Now, when you say, “gives them power,” is that
14 based on what you have read in these books?
15 A. No, it had nothing to do with that, just the crime
16 itself.
17 Q. Killing three eight-year-olds gives you power. I
18 don’t understand that. Explain that to me.
19 A. They probably thought, well, that they were like
20 overcoming other humans or something.

While the prosecution wasn’t positive as to the motivation behind the crime, they offered up numerous possibilities, and Douglas chose to ignore this rational one.

“When initially reviewing the case materials my first impression was that the case was a “lust murder” with the Byers victim being the primary target.”

Douglas here had suggested that he thought originally that the crime was a possible “lust murder” prior to injecting the defense claims into his profile.

John also claims that the person responsible for this crime was an organized offender, who was criminally sophisticated, but Pat Brown disagreed with her profile. John also claims that the victims were not mutilated, and stating there was bite marks on the bodies despite any evidence. He also suggests that maybe a parent killed the boys while trying to punish them, and simply got carried away.

Pat Brown would have a completely different opinion.

In her research on the case she would say this about the crime.

“The crimes were committed by more than one person.
The offenders lived nearby the crime scene.
The boys were targeted because they were easy to access and control.
The boys were probably followed and conned or lured into the woods.
The boys were overpowered by larger assailants and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.
The crime was planned but not in the sense that it would necessarily end with homicide. Like wilding, crimes involving groups of young teens often end extremely violently. Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience. The offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.
The crime was violent and was a show of power. Essentially, it was a thrill crime.”
In her’s she doesn’t seem to think there’s anything really sophisticated about the crime, which differs from Douglas. She also isn’t biased towards either the prosecution or defense scenarios, as her profile was done independently. And instead of a parent punishing a child, and the child’s friends, and then sort of getting carried away, which Douglas had claimed, she thought it was a thrill killing, just as the prosecution did.
For now to get a grasp on what sort of crime this is when three profilers are in disagreement, we’ll try looking into other means, by using research from profilers in general.Let’s try using a CAP Model with this crime(a tool that profilers sometimes use to help identify the type of crime). The CAP Model itself is like a diagram with certain aspects of a crime plotted in certain locations. And those locations are then separated into sections. Now here’s what a CAP Model actually looks like.
CAPIt’s arranged into 5 different types. Predator, Rape, Fury, Perversion, and Undifferentiated. Now the last one, Undifferentiated, means that items involved in a crime are too common to place them into one of the other 4 categories. So in reality, there’s more like 4 types of crimes here. You’ll also notice that certain elements of a crime are placed on the model, and those sections correspond to a number. That number helps us figure out what type of crime this is. There’s more elements to this, but this is just a very brief explanation. Additionally all the elements in each section of the Model do not have to be found in the crime. They are there simply to show the likeliness of the offender of a crime to engage in other criminal acts.Now, all the aspects of the crime that were considered of value(certain things like debates on if there was mutilation or predation turned out not to matter for this as stabbing was considered so common with the model that it doesn’t effect it in either way) were then popped into this model to arrive at the type of murder. From this, it appeared that the crime was likely a “Fury Murder” according to this type of model.

Richard N. Kocsis would espouse on this in a text book he authored on criminal profiling.

“Cluster 3 suggested a pattern of crime scene behaviors that had a very
violent nature but with much less calculation and deliberation being evident, perhaps coupled with a motive of revenge—an anger theme seemed to underscore this region. Thus, cluster 3 seemed to clearly identify a fury pattern.”

“In the previously discussed literature, the presence of souvenir or token
collection behaviors indicates an offender who exhibits the predator pattern (3–5). However, in the current model, souvenir and token collection features are exhibited in the adjacent fury pattern. Irrespective of the statistical classification of these behaviors within the fury pattern, they appear in a close bordering proximity to the predator pattern. This suggests that although these behaviors are statistically distinguished as being within the fury pattern, they can nonetheless appear to be associated with the predator pattern when adopting a broad directional interpretation of the model in contrast to the present regional clusters.”

“The fury pattern represents an explosive, unfocused obliteration of the
victim. A number of similarities exist between the fury pattern and existing
literature. The excessive uncoordinated violence and overall disorganization characteristic of this pattern demonstrates a similarity to the visionary killer espoused by Holmes and Holmes (4) or the archetypal disorganized offender category espoused by the FBI in its organized–disorganized dichotomy.”

Fury murders according to Kocsis tend to be a lot less organized, and Douglas claimed this was an Organized crime. This seems to lean more towards a Disorganized Offender.

Now Fury crimes tend to have all sorts of motives but are characterized by the anger the killer shows. Fury crimes also tend to be characterized by the victim being bludgeoned. This is also behavior which seems to suggest a Disorganized Offender.

Now lets take a look at Disorganized Offenders to see what we have here.

“The Disorganized Offender is around 16 to late 30s in age. The victims just happen to be there at the wrong time. These offenders are usually high school drop-outs and they have a below average intelligence. They may not be employed and if they are it would be out of sight from society, maybe a dishwasher or a janitor, or something along those lines. This type of offender feels that society rejects them and in return they have rejected society. These offenders don’t clean up very well, usually there is a lot of evidence left at the crime scene.”

http://www.personal.psu.edu/mlr247/

So, so far we have an idea that whoever committed the crime was a younger criminal, possibly as young as 16, or as old as his late 30’s. We know they’re probably not that bright, and we know they could be drop-outs.

“Disorganized offenders characteristically conduct blitz attacks on their victims due to a lack of social adequacy needed to verbally subdue their victims. They tend to have poor personal hygiene and are very reclusive (O’Connor, 2005). A disorganized rapist will often blindfold his victim or batter her face in an effort to depersonalize him or her (Owen, 2004). Any sexually sadistic acts would be committed after the victim is killed and the body will be left in plain view if still at the crime scene (Owen, 2004). Some disorganized killers take trophies or souvenirs of the victims in order to re-experience the events of the rape. Finally, a ‘disorganized’ crime scene will contain a myriad of fingerprints, footprints, and/or weapons used in the assault, making it much easier for investigators to narrow down the suspect pool by way of crime scene analysis.

In contrast to the disorganized offender, the ORGANIZED OFFENDER conducts extensive planning for the crime and staging of the crime scene to avoid detection and identification. Some of this staging will include removal of evidence such as weapons and restraints used in the attack. He tends to personify victims and is fairly adept at striking up conversations in order to lure their victims into submission. He very specifically chooses his victims by age, appearance, gender, lifestyle, occupation and other details which would be trivial to anyone but him. This offender’s lifestyle can be characterized as ‘put together’. He lives with a spouse or long-term partner, has a steady skilled job, and quality personal transportation. Physically, he is generally of above average weight and height and presents himself as non-threatening. FBI Special Agent John Douglass notes that “general organized offenders are hypothesized to kill after undergoing some sort of precipitating stressful event, such as financial, relationship, or employment problems” (Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004, p.2). Finally, the organized offender generally ranges in age from 18 to 45 years but is usually under the age of 35.

You may notice the phrase “tend(s) to” is used often here. This is due to the fact that the aforesaid generalizations are exactly that: generalizations. Offenders can learn over time; therefore, these general descriptors do not unequivocally describe every disorganized offender. While there are definite differences between both types of offenders, there are some commonalities which should be recognized as well. While both types of offenders are loners, organized offenders are loners due to his feelings of superiority over other. Both also have fathers who were inconstant in childhood discipline; however, the organized offender’s childhood is much more stable and ‘upper class’ than that of a disorganized offender (Owen, 2004). While the disorganized offender has no interest in the media, the organized offender will keep track of the goings on in the media in an attempt to keep up with police and media coverage of the crime (Owen, 2004). They may even go to the extent of keeping directly in touch with the local newspaper. As a precaution, organized offenders may even move or switch jobs to avoid being caught.”

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/16343-an-investigators-first-step-in-violent-offender-profiling

So according to the above we know that this type of person prefers to carry out the crime in a blitz attack, just like the head injuries the victims received in this case. It states that this is “due to a lack of social adequacy needed to verbally subdue their victims.” This type of killer may even leave evidence behind. This person is less likely to conceal or transport the bodies of the victims in a major way. The bodies were simply dumped in the near-by ditch. There was no transportation of the bodies.

Here’s from another site.

“Age: These offenders range in age from 16 to their late 30s. The selected victim is simply a victim of opportunity who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Many disorganized offenders experience their acting-out phase between the ages of 17 and 25.
Sex: Male
Race: Usually the same race as the victim, but local ethnic make-up should be considered.
Marital status: Single
Education/intelligence level: High school drop-out. Possibly community college. Below average intelligence. Considered a marginal student.
Physical characteristics: Thin, possibly with acne or some physical malady that contributes to an appearance that is different from the general population.
Employment: This type of offender may not be employed. If he is he will most likely seek out unskilled work. His job will be a simple menial one, requiring little contact with the public. Dishwasher, janitor, maintenance man etc.
Residence: Close to the area of the crime scene. Usually lives alone in a rental property or with his parents or with a significantly older female relative.
Arrest record: Arrests for voyeurism, fetish thefts, burglary, exhibitionism or other nuisance offenses.

This offender rejects society which he feels has rejected him, maybe because of some societal aversion. He is an underachiever with a poor self-image and his appearance is messy or even dirty. He is a night person and he commits his crimes in a blitz-style manner and tries to quickly silence the victim.
The crime scene will be random and sloppy and the body is often left at the place of the attack. There is no real effort to conceal the body and the murder weapon might even still be there.
There is often a lot of evidence on crime scenes left by disorganized offenders, such as smearing of blood and fingerprints. This type of offender may also take a souvenir. The souvenir can be an object or article of clothing or in some cases even a body part.”

http://hem2.passagen.se/blenda1/page4.html

So from that we know that the this killer probably lives near the crime scene, isn’t married, and may live with his parents or with an older, likely female relative. The relative bit seems a bit too specific, so for this reason, we should treat it as living with a relative.

This killer is likely the same race as the victims. A physical appearance that may be different from the general population. This person’s also an underachiever who feels society has rejected him.

They may also be unemployed, or work menial jobs as well.

So, so far we have an idea that whoever committed the crime was a younger criminal, possibly as young as 16. We know they’re probably not that bright. We know they could be drop-outs. They likely live with family, and they may not have a job.

“Victimology. The victim of a disorganized offender may be known to the offender since he often selects a victim of opportunity near his residence of employment. The victim is often from his own geographical area because this offender acts impulsively under stress and also because he derives confidence from familiar surroundings to bolster his feelings of social inadequacy.”“The risk factor of a disorganized sexual homicide victims is situational in the sense that by crossing the path of the offender, her risk is greatly elevated. The victim essentially becomes a casualty because he or she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“Crime Scene Indicators Frequently Noted. The crime scene of a disorganized sexual homicide reflects the spontaneous, and in some cases symbolic, quality of the killing. It is random and sloppy with great disarray. The death scene and the crime scene are often the same.
The victim location is known since it usually is where he or she was going about usual daily activities when suddenly attacked by surprise. There is evidence of sudden violence to the victim, a blitz style of attack. Depersonalization may be present, as evidenced by the face being covered by a pillow or towels or in a more subtle way, as with the body rolled on the stomach.
There is no set plan of action deterring detection. The weapon is one of opportunity, obtained at the scene and left there. There is little or no effort to remove evidence, such as fingerprints from the scene. The body is left at the death scene, often in the position in which the victim was killed. There is no attempt or minimal attempt to conceal the body.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=Il2lksVFS9oC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=disorganized+offender+age&source=bl&ots=DFBuXulNr_&sig=d-zIRH8X9IT7nbC4WkJDZZ3cy-U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jBgnUfrrNqPW0gH78YGIAg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=disorganized%20offender%20age&f=false

So from the above we know that this type of killer is someone from the area where the murder occurred. They kill in their area because it’s more comfortable for them. This is home for them after all. Victims are usually random and may be someone they just saw in the area a lot. It also may simply be a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. We also know from this that the killer will often acquire the tools for committing the crime at the scene. In this case the victims were bound with their own show laces, and likely sticks found at the crime scene could have been used. Both the bindings and the sticks were then left at the scene. A common trait for this type of crime.

Now here’s some more from the same source as above.

“Staging. Secondary criminal activity may be present, but usually it is more indicative of less sophisticated offender (disorganized offenders are often below average intelligence) than staging to confuse law enforcement.
The body may be positioned or deposited in a way that has special significance to the offender based on his sexually violent fantasies. It may be intended to make a statement or to obscure certain facts about the crime, for example, to disguise postmortem mutilation he is uncomfortable with. This should not be confused with staging, since the offender is generating a personal expression (personation) rather than deliberating trying to confuse the police.
Another example of the disorganized offender’s personation of his ritualized sexual fantasies is the excessive mutilation of the breasts, genitals, or other areas of sexual association, such as the thighs, abdomen, buttocks, and neck. This overkill is the enactment of his fantasy.”

So this type of killer is known for sexually mutilating their victims. This seems to further suggest that Christopher Byers was indeed mutilated by his killer, though it’s more or less irrelevant to a disorganized offender profile.

“Common Forensic Findings. The disorganized offender is often socially inept and has strong feelings of inadequacy. These feelings of deficiency will compel him to assault the victim in an ambush, blitz style, that will immediately incapacitate her or him. Injury effected in a disorganized sexual homicide is usually done when the offender feels the least intimidated and the most comfortable with the victim. This will be when the victim is unconscious, dying, or postmortem. In addition, sexual assault will probably occur at this time for the same reasons.
There may be depersonalization, which entails mutilation to the face and overkill (excessive amount or severity of wounds or injury) to specific body parts. The face, genitals, and breasts are most often targeted for overkill. Body parts may be missing from the scene.
The blitz style of attack common to this homicide is often manifested by focused blunt trauma to the head and face and lack of defensive wounds. There is a prevalence of attack from behind. Since death is immediate to establish control over the victim, there is minimal use of restraints.
Sexual acts are postmortem and often involve insertion of foreign objects into body orifices (insertional necrophilia). This is often combined with acts of mutilation–for example, slashing, stabbing, and biting of the buttocks and breasts. Since these acts often do not coincide with completed acts of sexual penetration, evidence of semen may be found in the victim’s clothing or (less frequently) wounds.
Most frequently death results from asphyxia, strangulation, blunt force, or the use of a pointed, sharp instrument.”

The victim is often unconscious or dead as a result of injuries to the head due to a blitz attack when the killer mutilates them or sexually assaults them. Wounds to the face and genitals are common. The blitz attack is done for control. Semen from the assault is also often found on the victim’s clothing, and there was indeed some possible semen found on a pair of pants belonging to one of the boys.

So after all that, let’s think about who could have done this crime. They’re young, possibly as young as a teen. We know this is a place kids and teens come to hangout and play. We know this offender’s the kind of person who may be a high school drop-out. We know the killer has to be from the area, and the victims had to have been familiar with the location. This means the killer was probably familiar this particular location as well. They also likely arrived there on foot. So this is someone young, who’s probably dropped out of school and spends time in an area where teens are present. This is also someone who likely still lives with their parents and doesn’t have a car. There was also evidence of possible accomplices at the scene, with as many as 2 or 3 different styles of knots used, and three sticks possibly used by the killer(s) in the commission of the crime. There had also been the lack of mutilation to one of the victims and the fact that one victim appeared to have fled. Adding to the notion of multiple killers present.

Well, what kind of individual would fit the bill of someone young and familiar with an area where children and teens commonly hangout? What type of individual travels the neighborhood on foot, and is likely unemployed? They also likely live with their parents or some other relative. They don’t have a car, and they run around in group of people. What does that all sound like? A teen, or more correctly multiple teens. Being that this is a hangout for young people, teenagers would have been very familiar with this location. Dawn Moore had even seen some leaving the area just prior to the boys arriving. It’d be less likely that multiple adults were staking this area out and ganged up on the boys. From the lack of criminal sophistication, it would seem apparent that someone younger had been involved, and this group of teens had over powered the children.

This would all seem to jive with Pat Brown’s profile. She would also remark on her belief that the WM3 were guilty in the quote below.

“Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away? Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence and no evidence of the bindings being on a live body for any period of time), who was unaccounted for at that time? The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth. The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders. Who does this sound like to you? How about that cold-blooded psychopath who wanted to kill people and drink blood and be God, who knew the boys, lived near the boys and had his homeys with him?

The Bite Mark Claims

The following article is broken down into four parts for the convenience of the reader.

Part 1Our Tale Begins: A summery of the Defense Team’s original claims. Containing theories of human bite marks.
Part 2When at First You Don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie, Again: A look at the changing claims, of the Defense. Introducing animal bite marks into the equation.
Part 3The Truth, Reality’s Best Friend: A look at the Prosecution’s opinion. With statements from prosecution experts, and those who actually performed the autopsies, and a break down on the injuries.
Part 4The Simplest Solution is Often the Right One: Additional evidence contradicting the defense claims, including thoughts on a likely murder weapon, evidence of antemortem injuries, luminol, and footwear from the victims.

OUR TALE BEGINS

Over the years the defense team would make numerous claims about the wounds present on the victims. For years they acknowledged that the wounds were mutilations made with a knife. Later they would also insist that all of the serration patterns which had matched to a knife the state had connected to the defendants, were actually human bite marks, but that a knife was also involved.

At the time of the human bite mark claims they had hired a criminal profiler to construct a profile that would point away from the WM3. This profiler was Brent Turvey, who was adamant that the bites were made by John Mark Byers, the step-father of Christopher Byers.

Turv_Bond0904-1
(Brent Turvey)

In an online chat he’d list wounds that he and the defense alleged were on the victims.

<Ratgrrl> What are pattern wounds exactly and what other kinds of wounds did you see on the kids?

<Brent_Tur> Rat– Potential footwear impression on the back of Stevie Branches head. Belt marks from a severe whipping, cutting deep into the tissue on Chris Byers thigh, and an impression from the knife hilt in the genital area of chris byers, where he was emasculated.

http://murderincorporated.yuku.com/topic/3097/Chat-with-Brent-Turvey-June-6th-1998#.UMPmJvmnKSp

Turvey was eventually cross examined about these claims in the following exchange.

Q.   Mr. Turvey, let me refer you now over to page fourteen of
your report and it’s the section under wound pattern analysis
on this — and this refers to the victim, Steve Branch.

A.    (EXAMINING.)

Q.    Are you there?

A.    Yes, I am.

Q.    Okay. Now, if I understood your testimony yesterday, when
you first received the material regarding the autopsy photos,
did you indicate that the pictures of Steve Branch were some of
the very first ones you examined?

A.    Yes, I did.

Q.    Okay. And if I understand, you characterized —
understood your testimony, as soon as you looked at the picture of the face of Steve Branch, based on your experience and knowledge and training, as soon as you looked at it, the thought bite mark jumped in your mind?

A.    Bite mark, yes, with an explanation.

Q.    Okay.

A.    My explanation being that I am not qualified to determine
the difference between a human bite mark and an animal bite
mark which is why I immediately said, okay, hopefully, a
forensic odontologist had looked at these.

Q.    Which one were you looking at?

A.    Which one?

Q.   Yeah.

A.    I was looking at the entire area.

Q.    Okay.

A.    There wasn’t a particular one. There — there were
several areas that could have had — that could have been
injuries that were the result of bite marks…

Q.   Okay. Were you aware of any efforts performed by the medical examiner’s office to specifically examine all three of the bodies for the purpose of ascertaining if there were any– any injuries consistent with bite marks?

A.    I — I have no report that says to me that they — whoa.
I apologize. Let me back up for a second. There is a mention of the tooth impressions on the victims  — of the inside of the victims’ mouths —

Q.    Right.

A.    — that were the result of their own lips being pressed
against their teeth. However, outside of that, I have no
knowledge of any — any efforts made by the medical examiner in

Q.   Okay. When you looked at the photographs of Steve Branch,
immediately the lights go off, you say in your head that —
that we may have bite marks here.

A.    Yes. 

Q.   Okay. And would you also expect a forensic pathologist looking at those same photographs to have the same reaction?

A.    I would hope but with an explanation. Can I — can I
explain?

Q.    Sure.

A.    My — my experience is that sometimes they see ’em and
sometimes they don’t…

A.   Sure.

Q.   Okay. And you would expect if bite marks were this
obvious that they jump out at you on the first perusal of the
photographs that you could get — you could rely on getting
some input back from the pathologist regarding that area?

A.    I’m not sure I understand the question.

Q.   Okay. You would expect a pathologist to give you some
guidance if you submitted those type of materials to him?

A.    It depends on what you ask the pathologist to do and how
much money you paid him, I suppose. If you only asked him one
question and that’s all you asked, I wouldn’t expect him to
give you anything beyond that question necessarily. It depends
on the forensic pathologist and what was asked of him…

BY MR. DAVIS:

Q.   But the — one of the first steps you would take if you
suspected bite marks is to send it to somebody like a forensic
pathologist to determine do they concur with your opinion?

A.    No. No, that would not be my first step.

Q.    You would — you would go directly to the odontologist?

A.   Yes, I would.

Q.    Okay. And not — not send the photograph for examination
or perusal by — by a forensic pathologist?

A.    It depends on the forensic pathologist. If the forensic
pathologist was also a board certified forensic odontologist,
then I’d be happy to send them to him

Q.    Did you notice what you believed to be bite marks on other
areas of the bodies of other victims?

A.    Yes, I did.

Q.    Okay. And did that enter into some of the opinions you
formulated that there were bite marks on multiple victims?

A.    Potentially bite marks, yes.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/october27.html

In the documentary “Paradise Lost 2: Revelations”, it was cited with a certainty that since John Mark Byers had his teeth pulled, it was proof that these were bite marks… and now the defense team could never prove it in court. In reality Byers simply needed dentures, and liked to gab, giving multiple stories for why he got them pulled. The documentary crew and many supporters of the WM3 would try to suggest that this proved he was the real killer.

Turvey would also suggest that the injuries to Stevie Branch’s genitals were caused by masturbation, and not an injury caused by the perpetrator.

Q.    Okay. Now, I’m — I’m referring to page sixteen of the
report regarding the sexual assault and rape indicators
regarding Steve Branch.

A.    (EXAMINING) Yes.

Q.   Okay. And is it fair to say that in your report that you
concluded that the injuries to the penis of Steve Branch were
the result of self-masturbation or masturbation play.

A.    Those are two possibilities, yes.

Q.   Okay.

A.   Very strong possibilities.

Q.   And you state in the report, it is the experience of this
examiner that this particular type of abrasion injury is
commonly seen as the result of repeated manual masturbation
without sufficient lubrication.

A.    That’s correct.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/october27.html

WHEN AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED, LIE, LIE, AGAIN

Years later the defense would drop these claims once they moved on to a new suspect. This time accusing Stevie Branch’s step-father Terry Hobbs. With this new accusation, came new bite mark claims. The bite marks were now the result of animal predation. The problem with this is that defense experts could never settle on what animals had caused the injuries. Some said dogs. Some turtles. Some were vague, but suggested any number of animals. All of these experts also based their opinions off of photos, and did not actually perform autopsies, nor view the bodies in person. This would naturally make it more difficult for an expert to judge if wounds were postmortem, perimortem, or antemortem.

One of the several experts the defense sought out to try and prove their claims was Terri Haddix, who would even claim how he used such cutting edge computer software as Adobe Photoshop to prove that the wounds in the autopsy photos were the result of animals feeding on the corpses and not the result of being mutilated with a knife. He would then vaguely say that a knife looked like it could, maybe make some of the wounds, but that he’d expect more cutting.

Another expert who weighed in on the bite mark claim was Werner Spitz.

118265-forensic-expert-dr-werner-spitz-testifies-in-the-trial-of-casey-anthon
(Werner Spitz testifying for the defense in the Casey Anthony trial.)

Spitz would say the following on the matter.

“Looking at the body of Michael Moore (Exhibit 48Q) I see a pattern on the right shoulder. The pattern is shown in other photographs including 48I. The pattern is all part of one event. It is inconsistent with a tool like a serrated knife.

The pattern is shown in other photographs including 48I. The pattern is all part of one event. It is inconsistent with a tool like a serrated knife.

This seems to look like the paw of a large animal. There are also scratches that look to me like animal mutilation.”

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/board/pdfs/Rule37/Spitz%202.pdf

Paw marks? The defense is currently claiming turtles made these injuries, but Spitz was suggesting that there is paw marks on the victims. As it would turn out Spitz favored dogs as the culprits in his theories.

Spitz also suggested that the victims weren’t even beaten.

“My interpretation of the injuries to the head was that first, there is no evidence of bleeding in the brain. My interpretation is that they may have been handled by large animals, shaken around”

According to him, animals, likely dogs, shook them around causing the skull injuries. He was actually trying to suggest that nearly all of the injuries were the result of dogs picking up the bodies with their teeth, and slamming them into rocks and trees.

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/board/pdfs/Rule37/Spitz%202.pdf

“The injuries that I saw are entirely consistent and
compatible with animal predation and the shaking of the bodies by an animal. The injuries to the face, to the head, the degloving of the penis, the tearing off of the scrotum, those injuries are not man-made. I cannot tell you where they occurred. The penis was not removed, it was degloved. Degloving or mutilation of the genital area by certain animals is not that unusual. I have an exemplar of it with me in one of the books I referenced.”

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_FF_04.jpg

Spitz made all of these claims with no proof to back it up. He gave no explanation when it came to the fact that the killer(s) had dumped the bodies under water and pressed them into the mud so they wouldn’t be found. Did the dogs drag the bodies out of the water, and then put them back? Did the dogs wear scuba gear and attack the bodies underwater? How did the boys actually die then? Did they drown? There had only been evidence that two of them drowned.

After learning more about who Werner Spitz, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that his claims would be downright… crazy, as he has a record of making ludicrous claims in other cases.

Lets start with the Casey Anthony case. Here’s some nice quotes about Dr. Spitz from former prosecutor Jeff Ashton’s book “Imperfect Justice”.

“Dr Werner Spitz was a forensic anthropologist who was over the age of eighty. Back in the eighties and early nineties, he was one of the leaders in his field. Over the last ten years or so, he had inserted himself into a number of high profile cases; O.J. was one, Phil Spector was another. Now he had involved himself in this case. I felt he was desperately searching for a way to maintain some relevance in his field.

His testimony was twofold. First, Dr. Spitz attacked Dr. Garavaglia for having not opened Caylee’s skull at autopsy. She had left it intact. That was a violation of basic autopsy protocol, he continued. Second, he was the only witness trying to render the opinion the skull had been removed from the crime scene. He testified that someone could have removed it, taken it home, put duct tape on it, and returned it to the scene.

When Dr. Spitz had performed his own autopsy, he had opened the skull and found some residue, which he claimed to be able to recognize from sight as the decomposition of the brain. To him, the residue indicated that the skull had been on its side when the brains decomposed. I called this the “brain dust” testimony.

On cross, I started with his criticism of Dr. Garavaglia’s autopsy, about the violation of protocol claim, that Dr. G had not opened the skull. Dr. Spitz had been one of the authors of a basic text book on forensic anthropology. I took his book up to the stand, put it down in front of him, and said, “Show me where you say it is protocol to open the skull when it is skeletonized.”

He leafed through the pages and did not find any reference to his claim. I next asked him if he was familiar with any other written protocol on the opening of the skull at autopsy. And he answered no. Next, I addressed the “removal and return of the skull” theory. I went through what I thought would be necessary to carry out what he was alleging. Someone would have to take the skull and the mandible home, put them in an anatomically correct position, tape the two pieces together, and put the skull back in the exact location where it had been. Dr. Spitz argued that though it would be difficult, it could be done.

I showed him the photo taken at the medical examiner’s office, showing that strands of hair were draped over the skull. I asked him how the hair could fall so perfectly back to its original position in a re-created scene. I pointed out that the manner of the hair falling on the skull was not consistent with being on its side.

Dr. Spitz got belligerent with me, to a point where he didn’t know how to answer. He said that maybe the medical examiner had staged the photo. So I showed him the photo taken at the scene with the strands of hair in exactly the same position. He then claimed that maybe the police had staged the skull. In my opinion, Dr. Spitz’s testimony ended up being completely discredited.”

What a credible expert we have here. Let’s read on. Another time he was called to testify for the defense in the trial of serial killer Richard Ramirez.

The appeals documents point out Spitz’s testimony, making claims that the defense would try try and twist so as to suggest other people had really committed the murders, and that only maybe a few were even linked.

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-ramirez-33683

“The defense focused on the lack of physical evidence tying defendant to the charged crimes, attacked the reliability of the identifications of defendant, and offered the alibi that defendant was in Texas when the crimes against Mabel Bell, Florence L., and Carol K. were committed.

The manager of Jennie Vincow’s apartment building testified that the windows in the victim’s apartment were in working order following the murder.

Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz testified, based upon the temperature of Vincow’s apartment, her body temperature when found, and the circumstance that her body had been covered, that Vincow had been dead four to five hours when her body was discovered.

The police officer who discovered the AC/DC cap at the scene of Dale Okazaki’s murder testified the cap was just inside the threshold of the garage.

Okazaki’s roommate, Maria Hernandez, was shown a photographic lineup that did not include defendant’s photograph, and she said one of the photographs resembled her attacker. That person was apprehended and questioned, but then released.

A police officer who responded to the scene where Tsai-Lian Yu was murdered testified that witness Jorge Gallegos told him that he never saw the assailant fight with the victim, did not hear gunshots, and would not be able to identify the assailant. Photographs later taken of the crime scene showed poor lighting conditions that would make an identification of the assailant difficult. A defense pathologist testified that Yu’s injuries were consistent with her having been shot while seated in her car.”

The defense pathologist in the Tsai-Lian Yu portion was Werner Spitz.

The defense team with the help of Spitz had been trying to also suggest that Jennie Vincow’s son, who had discovered her body, killed his elderly mother, which was why they were looking to argue the time of death.

This is a quote from page 488 of “The Night Stalker: The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez” by Philip Carlo, concerning some of Spitz’s testimony on behalf of the defense.

“The defense called Dr. Werner Spitz, who stated he had studied the morgue photographs of all fourteen murders in the case. In his opinion, Veronica Yu was shot inside her car, and going by body and ambient temperatures, Jennie Vincow had died two hours before she’d been found.

  Not happy with this witness, Halpin demanded to know why the doctor was so sure Veronica had been shot from inside the car. Spitz replied that the wound was on the right side of the chest and the bullet’s trajectory left-to-right. He then told the jury how he had calculated Vincow’s time of death.”

The defense even went so far as put her son on the stand and make him recount having seen his mother’s remains, and how her head was barely attached to the body. They also attacked him for refusing to take a polygraph and not being cooperative with the police after having witnessed the sight of his mutilated, and partially decapitated mother. He sobbed through-out much of his testimony, and many of the jurors would find it painful to watch.

Lastly lets take a look at the Phil Spector case.

Spitz would testify in that case, to how the victim spontaneously shot herself, despite that her teeth were clenched when the bullet was fired. Now normally when someone shoots themselves, they put the gun in their mouth, and tend… not to inflict extra harm upon themselves, such as shooting through your teeth first.

http://losangelestrials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-trial-dr-werner-spitz.html

Here’s some quotes from another site.

“Dr. S: There’s a lot of pressure in a confined space. […] The recoil shattered the teeth but the gases expelled them out […] across the room.

Weinberg then puts up an image of the excised tongue up on the ELMO. To me, this is one of the grossest photos. I know that seems strange but to me, it just is.

DW: Do those appear to be blunt force trauma from something being forced into the mouth?

Spitz identifies the large dark area on the left side of the tongue may not be a bruise at all! It may be soot!

Dr. S: No. There’s a lot of trauma there. […] Lots of explosive trauma in the mouth.

To me, it’s possible this is not what Weinberg expected him to say. It’s interesting that he doesn’t go over the autopsy diagrams with Dr. Spitz from the autopsy report to verify or not verify that this area of the tongue may or may not have been caused by the gun. We know for certain that this area of the tongue is a bruise because Dr. Pena dissected it and found how deep it went. For Dr. Spitz to look and a photograph of it and say that it may not be a bruise, but soot, is pretty sad. It sends me the message that it’s been a long time since he familiarized himself with the evidence.”

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-thirty-nine.html


It’s needless to say that while Spitz is a famous, and very high paid expert often deployed by defense teams, his testimony is also questionable.

The defense team would also hire yet another famous, yet questionable expert, this time in the form of Dr. Michael Baden. Baden was noticeably famous as a celebrity forensics expert, having testified for the defense in the O.J. Simpson case. Below is an article on his testimony from the civil case.

“At Simpson’s criminal trial, which ended in acquittal last year, Michael Baden testified that it was likely two people armed with two knives committed the murders. He repeated that Monday at Simpson’s wrongful-death civil trial.

But under a sometimes shrill cross-examination by Edward Medvene, one of the lawyers representing the Goldman family, Baden said there was strong evidence to support a one-killer theory.

In particular, he backed off the two-killer theory when told that another defense witness, Henry Lee, had testified in a pretrial deposition that only one pair of shoe prints was found leaving the scene.

The testimony came in the second week of the defense case, expected to go until mid-January. The plaintiffs have presented their side.

Also, Baden previously had testified that Goldman struggled for as long as 15 minutes before crumpling to the ground and dying. If so, it would have been impossible for Simpson to begin his attack at 10:40 and return to his home by 10:55 as the plaintiffs contend.

Baden said he based his opinion on trails of blood down Goldman’s clothes and blood in his shoe. Baden said the evidence suggested death was caused by bleeding from the jugular vein, from which blood oozes slowly.

But under cross-examination, when confronted with pictures of Goldman’s clothes that showed relatively small amounts of blood, Baden couldn’t point to evidence that there was more than half a quart of expended blood. At least 1.5 quarts must be lost for a person to die, experts say.

The plaintiffs’ pathology expert, Werner Spitz, testified last month that death came within seconds after the attacker pierced Goldman’s aorta.

Baden acknowledged that Goldman could have collapsed within two or three minutes. “I think it was pretty quick, a few minutes, whatever,” he said brusquely.

Baden also contradicted Simpson’s testimony on how Simpson cut himself. Baden told jurors that while examining Simpson five days after the murders, Simpson said he thought he cut himself going to his car to get his cell phone.

Simpson told police the same thing after the murders. But when he testified in the civil trial, Simpson emphatically denied cutting himself in Los Angeles. He said he cut himself on broken glass in Chicago.

Tuesday’s testimony was the third time since last Thursday that Simpson’s forensic witnesses seemed to waffle. Last week, DNA expert John Gerdes repeated testimony criticizing Los Angeles police department techniques for collecting DNA. But he then acknowledged that most of the test results in the case were reliable.

And before Baden on Monday, expert Herbert MacDonell repeated his testimony that a bloodstain found on socks left on Simpson’s bedroom floor was deposited after the socks had been taken off. He based that on tests detailing how blood passed from one side of the socks to the other.

That was the cornerstone of a defense argument that the blood was planted. Under cross-examination, MacDonell conceded the seepage could have occurred when police criminalists applied wet swatches to the socks to pick up the blood sample.

Analysts said the testimony weakened the defense’s case.

”The big three (witnesses) have not delivered the kind of doubt-raising impact that the defense hoped they would have done with this jury,” says Southwestern law professor Robert Pugsley. “The failure is particularly significant in light of Simpson’s poor performance on the stand.”

Also Tuesday, an alternate juror was dropped after bragging in a Christmas card to a friend that he was on the panel. The friend, a sheriff’s deputy, reported it to court officials. The ouster leaves four alternates.

By Jonathan T. Lovitt, USA TODAY “

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns140.htm

Baden had been claiming that Simpson was innocent, because he felt that there was two killers, and Simpson just wouldn’t have had the time to commit the murders. But, at the civil trial, Baden’s expert opinions seemed to fall apart. To this day, despite being proven wrong, he refuses to back down from his claims. The only bit he admits is that maybe O.J. was guilty, but if he was, he’d have to have had an accomplice.

In this video you can see Baden still making the multiple killer claim, even with the fact that there was only one set of bloody foot prints left by the killer, and O.J.’s blood found next to those prints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBOeMv2cms

In the West Memphis Three case, Baden would suggest a theory to help out the defense, claiming snapping turtles along with a whole slew of other animals had possibly caused the injuries.

“I cannot be specific about what animal might have caused the injury, but my view is that the injuries I saw were consistent with animal activity. I did review the affidavits of Shawn Ryan Clark and Heather Hollis, who explained that they had been swimming in the ditch and had seen alligator snapping turtles in it.
“I would not purport to identify specific animals that might have inflicted the injuries. I would defer to forensic veterinarians. They could have been turtle injuries, there were scrape marks that might look like turtle claw marks, and there might have been dogs or other animals. Some of the injuries on the bodies are triangular and consistent with my experience with the sorts of triangular injuries
caused by snapping turtles. (BMHR 1921-1923).”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_baden.html

The defense later with the help of Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson would eventually engage in the production of a documentary called “West of Memphis”, in which the turtle claims would be furthered. The documentary was directed by Amy Burg, with Jackson and Damien Echols as producers. It would feature scenes with turtle wranglers and autopsy photos that it would claim matched up to the shape of turtle mouths.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2130321/

THE TRUTH, REALITY’S BEST FRIEND

The state would counter all of these animal predation claims with their own experts.

Dr. William Sturner would state the following.

“As to the injuries to Christopher Byers, I did review the testimony that they had a “serrated…quality” to them. (BMHR 2885) My opinion was that the injuries to him are not characteristic of animal predation. They look like incised, gouged, penetrating wounds. Some are antemortem wounds that may have leeched out in
the water – perimortem might also be correct. (BMHR 2887)
“I would have told Dr. Peretti if I had seen a particular pattern to the injuries. I did not see evidence of animal predation. (BMHR 2912).”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_sturner.html

The original state Forensics expert Frank Peretti would also state the following on the defense’s ever changing claims.

“Peretti was asked by the State to review the testimony given by defense experts Spitz, Baden, Souviron, and Ophoven. He said he only read part of Spitz, all of Baden, and some of Souviron. He said he couldn’t read much, because the defense expert’s opinions were ‘ridiculous.’ He was pressed by Burt, became irritated, and then stated angrily that Spitz was ‘incoherent,’ Baden ‘reasonable,’ and Souviron out in ‘left field.’ He said Spitz’ description of a dog shaking the bodies, smacking them against trees did not make sense. He went further and said that he felt their testimony was nothing more than a personal attack against him, to make him look incompetent. He said only Baden said that the autopsies conducted were fine. He said he didn’t think their opinions meant much, because they had not looked at the actual bodies. He said he didn’t feel badly for not supplying the information the experts asked for, because he had asked for photos and other materials from them, and did not receive anything. He went further and said he felt important being attacked by all these experts. He said he was only one person who was right, why did they need so many to prove he was wrong.”

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/7651/Updates-Hearings-News-articles-links-notes-court?page=5

Two experts would also state that the knife the state believed was used in the murders, had matched up to the wounds perfectly.

http://westmemphishomicidesdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/1407&sa=U&ei=DUK2UJ6NEIfA8ATy-oCICg&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHCapFoPbdjPe9I38Xd3yiTXil3rA#.ULZCuMWsfg4

Both of these experts had impeccable credentials, and were well respected in their field. One was Homer Campbell and the other was Peter Loomis.

Homer Campbell has in the past even worked on cases with FBI profiler John Douglas.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/bitemarks/4.html

And Peter Loomis has even worked on famous serial murder cases.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/crime_krqe_albuquerque_more_women_from_mesa_graves_described_200905202323

Here’s what they would say to Shaun Wheeler, a long time investigator into this case.

Homer Campbell would say this.

“I believe the injurie to the left forehead and upper lid of the left eye were produced by the knife recovered or one similar. I also sent the photos of the injuries and the knife to another for evaluation and he agrees.”

Peter Loomis was the individual Campbell sent the photos to for evaluation.

Here’s what Peter Loomis would have to say.

“Bingo. The circular mark sure looks like the butt of the survival knife. The measurements fit. The diameter of the injury is 30mm, and the diameter of the prominent circular area of the butt of the knife is 29.8mm.
 
The 3 lacerations under the eyebrow look like they were made by the serrations on the back side of the knife. The measurements also fit here. The lacerations measure 11.2mm between them, and the serrated points on the knife vary between 11.1 and 11.4 mm. Of course the photo
 with the wooden ruler is blurry depicting these serrations but I can still measure them.”

Now here’s one of the photos of the wounds that the two experts are talking about. This photo was at one time purported by the defense to show a human bite mark(Remember those claims by Brent Turvey?). As it would turn out these wounds would be matched to a knife, and not human teeth.

(Warning) This photo was used since it’s been debated as a “bite mark”, and also happens to show the area in question. (Warning)

http://callahan.8k.com/images/pics/bitemark.jpg

Look at the ruler next to the wound. Study the size. What you’re seeing according Campbell and Loomis is multiple wounds at that spot. Notice the large circular wound with the “X” shaped wound in the middle. Look at the size of it compared to the ruler.

Now look at the knife handle.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/lakeknife/knife3.jpg

Do you see how it’s round and the same size as that wound? It even matches up almost perfectly to the measurements on the rulers.This is the likely source of that wound. The “X” shaped wound likely got there from the compass that used to be on the end of the handle as well. It possibly may have broken during the attack, thus explaining it’s absence from the knife. The “X” possibly being caused by the center piece in the middle of the compass.

In this video we can actually see this knife handle compared to the wound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgf1Epw3TM

Now go back and take a look at those crescent moon shaped wounds. Notice how they go, cut, space, cut, space, cut.

Now take a look at this photo of the same knife.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/lakeknife/knife2.jpg

Do you see all those serrations on the back of the knife? See how it goes notch, space, notch, space? Look at the size of them on the knife. See how they’re of similar size to the wounds? They even measure up to be about the same size as well, just as the experts claimed.

In court Deputy Prosecutor John Fogleman demonstrated how the knife created similar serration patterns on a grapefruit.

MR. FOGLEMAN: I told you we would be getting back to this knife. And this is one of those deals where y’all are gonna have to look at some of those pictures. And you may even have to study some of them back in the jury room.

THE COURT: Refer to it by exhibit number.

FOGLEMAN: Exhibit 77.

THE COURT: Alright.

Untitled

FOGLEMAN: There are–if you’ll look at those photographs, there are marks on Christopher Byers where you’ve got like a dash–where it’s a cut–a cut and open space, a cut and an open space. And if you take this knife (INDICATING) and do that (INDICATING) then you look closely you can see it leaves a cut and an open space, a cut and an open space.

Untitled.png2

Untitled.png3

During the presentation, the knife clearly made the same type of serrations that Peter Loomis had compared exactly to to the very same knife, and matched to Stevie Branch. And according to Loomis the measurements were about the same.

Fogelman went further during his closing statements.

“This is the picture, the area circled–dash, dash, dash, dash. Now keep in mind one thing, when you go back in the jury room, get your–this is not to scale right here. (INDICATING) Now I’m gonna be fair. If I lay this up here, boy you’ll think–boy, that’s sharp. And just matches, just practically perfectly.

But now listen, now. This is not one-to-one. Keep in mind this is a rounded leg. So there’s a little bit of distortion. But if you take this, and take a piece of paper–get your ruler back there and measure the spaces on here, you’re gonna find that in between each of these blade is a quarter inch and the blade itself is three-sixteenths. Take a little piece of paper, and on this scale right here–not on your ruler, but on this scale–go three-sixteenths and a quarter, and three-sixteenths and a quarter and where your three-sixteenths are, make a straight line–just like this would be. (INDICATING.) And then, on the flat part right here (INDICATING) these two that are larger, if you do it–think about, it’s rounded. This strikes a rounded surface. The ones on the end are only gonna have part of the blade. Take that, and you lay it on the two larger cuts and you’re gonna find that they match. They fit. That is one example of how this knife matches–not just a little bit, but so much more than that knife or any other serrated knife.

He compared this knife to a knife submitted by the defense, belonging to John Mark Byers. The Byers knife was an attempt by the defense to suggest that Mark Byers had been the real killer. Fogleman, made point by point though that the survival knife they recovered was the more likely weapon.

“Now, I’m saying that that shows, that this exact knife caused it–now I submit the proof that shows this knife caused this–but true, it could be another knife like this, but I submit to you the proof–the circumstantial evidence shows that this knife–State’s Exhibit 77, caused those injuries right there. (INDICATING.) Now, if you look at those, there are similar injuries right here. (INDICATING.) And look at the gap between that cut and that cut. (INDICATING.) Now, you’re gonna have a harder time on this particular one because see in the picture how the ruler is bent. (INDICATING.) They’ve got it pushed down so you’re gonna have distortion in the measurements. But look at this one–and then there’s another one on here that is almost as telling as these and those on that picture. (INDICATING.) This is State’s Exhibit 71C. See this wound right here? (INDICATING.) See how wide and jagged and gouged that wound is? See that? (INDICATING.)” Well, you take this knife and drag it across with a serrated edge and boy you’ve got a straight line. Take this knife and drag it and it rips and tears just like in the picture.

Ladies and gentlemen, you go back there and look at those pictures, and as Mr. Davis asked you in jury selection–look at those pictures closely. Now there’s another way that these knives can make markings and that’s scrapes. And you’ll see that–that this knife has a vastly different pattern if it’s scraped against the skin than this knife. (INDICATING.) And it’s obvious just by looking at it. You got a larger gap and then you’ve got two narrow gaps–two narrow gaps, a large gap, two narrow gaps, a large gap. For this one you’ve got–it’s pretty uniform, and you’ve got a quarter inch, three sixteenths, quarter inch–it’s uniform all the way down. Where this one you would have a large gap, then you’ve got the blade which is smaller, and then the larger gap. This one you’ve got a number of different blade patterns and it’s going to make a completely different scrape than this knife. (INDICATING.)”
During closing statements during the Echols/Baldwin trial, Prosecutor Brent Davis would describe how the knife was sharp on both sides, and how the knife inflicted these injuries.

“The other thing to keep in mind is– and John didn’t mention this, but remember this knife has two cutting surfaces. It’s got one here and it’s got this serrated portion back here. Now, the ripping type injuries you see on the children are on the inside of the thighs and the back of the thighs and the inside of the buttocks. Ok. When this surface is being used to remove the genitals and the knife is worked in and they’re trying to remove the genitals this back surface is what’s going to be coming in contact with the inside of the thigh and the back of the buttocks. The knife that you were shown over here, the Byers knife, it has but one cutting surface. If they’re using that knife to remove the genitals, then the back of that knife has no cutting surface at all and wouldn’t leave any marks on the inside of the leg or the back of the leg. And I ask you to go back there and look at this and think, when you look at those photographs and where those injuries are–think of how this knife is used, and I know it’s not pleasant. But think of it and then look at where those marks are and how they match up with this particular size of blade.”

Now in Peretti’s rule 37 statement he’d say the following about  the injuries to Stevie’s face.

“There were contusions of the ears and injuries that I noted to be, irregular gouging wounds, cutting wounds on the left side of the face. I characterized them as gouged in that the tissue was torn and pulled. State Exhibits 34 and 35 show the pattern injury to the top of the face. State Exhibits 36 and 37 shoe the bell shaped injury and the injury to the ears. I did not section these injuries. There was a pattern injury that I concluded might have been a belt buckle.”

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_peretti1.html

Now here’s the gouging injuries Peretti is describing.


(WARNING) Photo of wounds on Stevie’s face. (WARNING)

http://imageshack.us/a/img845/8968/fel.png

Now in this next image some portions of the wound have been highlighted. These show what look like almost straight lines in this wound.

http://imageshack.us/a/img196/8535/if1.png

Now, these wound’s could have been where the knife entered at.

Now in this next one, you can see there’s like a line going down to one of these gouging wounds.

http://imageshack.us/a/img823/9100/5t7u.png

This line could be from the blade touching the skin, either on the front or back side, as the gouging injuries were being inflicted.

Now this next one shows what looks like a second line also going down towards the gouging wounds.

http://imageshack.us/a/img824/7103/v9gm.png

Now in this next one we see almost two crescent moon shaped injuries, with an opening at the bottom of each.

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/651/92db.png

These could be caused by someone pressing a knife at the location, explaining the openings in the bottom of the shapes, and trying to cut the victim’s face. Possibly the victim may have been resisting, leaving this injury.

Next in Peretti’s rule 37 statement he said this concerning the injuries to Christopher Byers.

“There were multiple wounds in the inner thighs. In my view all of the wounds occurred prior to death. Though I wrote that the wounds looked post-mortem, you could see hemorrhage in the tissues. There were some injuries to the buttocks and what I described as superficial cutting wounds in parallel lines. There was some drying of the tissues. I don’t know any kind of animal that would have caused this kind of pattern of wounds. There were a number of contusions found elsewhere on the body. I found diffuse pallor caused by the loss of blood. He had bled out. There were ghost cells found on the penis slides. These indicated the leaching of blood. The serrated knife that you have here could have inflicted the pattern wounds on the skin. I found that the knife shown to me by the State (State’s Exhibit 42) had patterns consistent with linear gouges on the remains of Mr. Byers.

I characterize certain contusions in the thigh area as defensive wounds.”

So these injuries on the inner thigh region may have gotten there as defensive wounds, from Christopher resisting as he was castrated.

(WARNING) Photo of the inner thigh of Chris Byers. (WARNING)

http://imageshack.us/a/img845/2598/t92b.png

Now let’s go back to what Brent Davis said in closing.

“The other thing to keep in mind is– and John didn’t mention this, but remember this knife has two cutting surfaces. It’s got one here and it’s got this serrated portion back here. Now, the ripping type injuries you see on the children are on the inside of the thighs and the back of the thighs and the inside of the buttocks. Ok. When this surface is being used to remove the genitals and the knife is worked in and they’re trying to remove the genitals this back surface is what’s going to be coming in contact with the inside of the thigh and the back of the buttocks. The knife that you were shown over here, the Byers knife, it has but one cutting surface. If they’re using that knife to remove the genitals, then the back of that knife has no cutting surface at all and wouldn’t leave any marks on the inside of the leg or the back of the leg. And I ask you to go back there and look at this and think, when you look at those photographs and where those injuries are–think of how this knife is used, and I know it’s not pleasant. But think of it and then look at where those marks are and how they match up with this particular size of blade.”

So, there were serrated patterns all over Stevie and Chris, and these injuries seemed to match up to a large survival knife.

THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION IS OFTEN THE RIGHT ONE

Now this all seems to suggest that a knife isn’t that far-fetched as the source of the mutilations.

Another thing to consider is the fact that there was still one lace in the shoes belonging to the victims.

clothing_244_size_13_shoe_lace_

shoe-1

Now the victims were tied up with their own shoe laces, with six laces used to tie the victims up. Two of these laces were actually the remains of one lace which had been cut in half, which is why there’s another lace still in the shoe. That right there would mean that there was a knife used in this crime, which counters the defense claims that the wounds were the result of animal predation.

Luminol photos would also show blood at the crime scene, again suggesting that the victims were likely cut with a knife.

luminol044

luminol034

In a letter to prosecutor Brent Davis, Frank Peretti stated that there was hemmorhaging of the wounds.

” First, Dr. William Q. Sturner, (the Chief Medical Examiner at the time of the autopsies) and I personally examined the bodies of the three boys along with Dr. Kevin Dugan, a forensic dentist. Dr. Dugan’s finding that none of the wounds appeared to be human bite marks was subsequently corroborated by Dr. Harry Mincer.

Second, as part of the autopsy process, tissue samples were taken from some of the superficial and penetrating wounds. When Examined grossly and microscopically these samples demonstrated presence of hemorrhage, clearly indicative of antemortem injury and not postmortem animal activity.

Third, physical examination of the penetrating wounds showed a lack of soft tissue bridging typical of wounds caused by tearing or biting. These wounds did show clearly incised edges, indicating they were caused by a sharp instrument.

Finally, I have consulted with Dr. Charles Kokes (the current Chief Medical Examiner) regarding the autopsies and he concurs in the findings made and the conclusions drawn from them.”

Antemortem, means the boys were alive when the injuries were inflicted, meaning they had to have been done by their killer(s). This further makes it unlikely that animals were responsible.

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/peretti_letter_5_30_08.pdf

Sturner would back up these statements.

“To me, the injuries to Mr. Byer’s inner thighs had some fresh blood in them, and that would qualify them as antemoretem or perimortem injuries. I reviewed the histological slides of Mr. Byers penis, and there was fresh hemorrhage, and also some ghost cells of bacteria there. The fresh blood cells are indicative of antemortem or perimortem injuries. 

The injuries to Steve Branch’s face, around the mouth seemed to me to be perimortem or antemortem as well. I thought that there was evidence of more than one impact to him, given the findings at autopsy.
I think that I heard about the discussion about the possible bite mark with Dr. Dougan after the fact. My opinion was that the injury to Steven Branch’s check came from some kind of cylinder, something that was could be used to pound. I did not view those injuries as animal predation. The findings about his pallor were important because they reflected blood loss.

As to the injuries to Christopher Byers, I did review the testimony that they had a “serrated…quality” to them. My opinion was that the injuries
to him are not characteristic of animal predation. They look like incised, gouged, penetrating wounds. Some are antemortem wounds that may have leeched out in the water – perimortem might also be correct.”

He would also talk about his experience with two of the defense experts, and how it’s normal to disagree on cases. He’d also mention a pipe like injury to Stevie’s face.

“I have co-authored a paper with Dr. Michael Baden. He is an excellent
forensic pathologist. I know Dr. Spitz as a well-known authority in the field. The same is true of Dr. Di Maio. I would consider all of their opinions to see where they stood in relation to my own. Experts can have differences of opinion. 

I am not familiar with Dr. Joseph Cohen, or that he had testified in the
Echols Rule 37 , and that he was a New York Assistant Medical Examiner. It is my opinion that pathologists in that office would have seen cases of animal predation in his professional experience.

I do not believe that I made any notes in connection with my examination of the bodies. I did a kind of “curb-side consult” It was Dr. Peretti’s case.
Had I been asked to testify at trial, I would have expressed the view that it
was a cylindrical tool that had left an imprint on the left cheek of Mr. Branch. I don’t recall ever being approached by a defense lawyer in the case about that subject. My view was that the lesions on Mr. Branch’s face were of an unusual shape and I thought it was some kind of a pipe that made them.

I agree that it is helpful for a forensic pathologist to consult with a certified forensic odontologist. They are usually on staff in major offices. 
In my own professional experience, it has been very unusual to have seen a removal of genitalia as in Mr. Byers’ case. I might have seen only one other case in Chicago.”

Remember the statements by Loomis and Campbell about the bottom of the knife? They suggested that the handle of the knife left a circular pattern.

knife5

The bottom of the knife was round, and was essentially a metal pipe. Sturner also suggested a pipe for some of the injuries to Stevie’s face.

The knife also once had a compass that went on the knife, common to many survival knives, much like the one pictured below.

SurvivalKnife

This compass may have looked something like this.

knives-survival-knife-with-compass-black-hk-8838b-c

So the bottom stuck out with a little metal part, which most likely caused the “X” shaped injury, that was mentioned.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/pics/bitemark.jpg

With all of that said, it’s safe to say that the wounds were likely not the result of animal predation, and no solid evidence of definite bite marks on the bodies. There’s also 7 experts suggesting that the wounds were made with a knife, luminol photos, which seem to confirm that the mutilations occurred on the ditch bank, rather than in the water as a result of animals feeding on the bodies.

There was even possibly blood seen pooling on the top of the water at the crime scene on the night of the murder. At the time it was thought to be an oil slick. It was reported by Jackie Hicks in the book “The Blood of Innocents”.

page 44

“Searching until the wee hours, Hicks and Terry Hobbs spotted what they thought was an “oil slick” on Ten-Mile Bayou about 3 A.M. “Terry asked me, ‘What’s that on the water?'” The men couldn’t tell. They went home, and Jackie decided he should brace his daughter.

“We better prepare for the worst,” he told her.

So this meant that the bodies were bleeding in the water. Blood was actually floating on top of the water at this point. Couple that with the fact that the wounds hemmorhaged, an a cut shoe lace, and it all seems to suggest that there was a knife involved in this crime.