www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13576147/west-memphis-three-attorney-new-theory-murder-killer.html
DNA testing underway?
I have always wondered about a trucker. I was in my early 20s when this happened. The area was much different at that time. The back lot of the truck wash was right up against the woods. I have always wanted to know who Mr Bojangles was as well. The restaurant was only 3 quarters of a mile away.
The Mr Bojangles thing has always frustrated me especially since they did take blood from the scene but lost the samples. But it’s a very interesting facet of what happened that night.
I probably never considered a trucker as a possible suspect since it just never occurred to me that a guy could just roll into town and do that sort of thing to three children he didn’t know in an area that he was probably also unfamiliar with. But to be fair what happened to those boys is frankly horrifying and isn’t what a rational person would do, so you never know.
Bojangles man was incapable of committing the crime. He couldn't even wipe his ass and was incoherent.
He murdered three children and had the ability and mindset to hide their bodies, clean up the crime scene and wash down the ditchbank with one arm, but then gave himself away by stumbling into a public place covered in blood?
Nah
Honestly, anything is possible, but I don't really see it happening.
A stranger taking that risk in broad daylight with not one but three children? How would one person subdue all three of them?
The child molester James K Martin offered an explanation in his police interview as to how a lone offender could’ve subdued the three boys.
He suggested the perpetrator may have already had the trust of one boy through prior grooming, and could’ve suggested some sort of game, like cops and robbers, involving tying the boys up, or having them tie each other. Persuading or intimidating them into removing their clothes may also have caused them to be too embarrassed or fearful to try to run away.
I also agree with others, one adult or teenager could easily be scary enough to gain compliance from three scared eight year olds. The geography of the area it happened in would’ve made the prospect of trying to outrun an adult very difficult for a little kid, and they may well have realised that and gone the compliance route to try to appease their attacker/s.
I get what you're saying, but all we have is what little evidence there is available. The rest of it is pure speculation.
To suggest that someone was grooming them and then convinced them to tie each other up by playing a game like Cops and Robbers is the same as suggesting that a traveling circus went through town and an insane clown broke out of his tent and murdered them.
There's no evidence for either circumstance happening.
The evidence we do have is that each boy was tied with different knots:
Michael Moore: Left wrist, square knot. Left ankle, square knot. Right wrist, three half hitches. Right ankle, four half hitches.
Stevie Branch: Left wrist, three half-hitches. Left leg, three half-hitches and two loops around the leg. Right wrist, half-hitch with a figure eight. Right ankle, three half-hitches with an extra loop around the leg.
Chris Byers: Left wrist, two half-hitches. Left ankle, two half hitches. Right wrist, two half hitches. Right ankle, two half-hitches.
https://www.jivepuppi.com/laces_and_bindings.html
Keeping that evidence in mind, it leads me to believe that it was likely that there was more than one perpetrator. I'm not saying it was 100% Damien, Jason, and Jessie, but I still don't think that it was someone acting alone.
It’s also worth noting that it isn’t pure speculation that some sort of grooming had already taken place; Stevie had marks on his genitals which the medical examiner felt were an indication of previous sexual abuse.
I also remember reading years ago that Chris’s parents were becoming concerned that somebody may be abusing him due to him beginning to make inappropriate sexual comments in the months leading up to the murders. I can’t find the source of that now, but it was definitely something that was talked about a lot years ago. Unfortunately the loss of old message boards and stuff makes it harder to find sources now. 😕
You wondered how one person could’ve controlled the situation, and that was JKM’s suggestion. He was an experienced child molester, so perhaps something like that had worked for him in the past...
A lot of people wonder about the knots.
Personally, I know how to tie several different types of knot, and suspect most people do. When making several ties on something, I will often select different knots depending on how much length of rope I have for each tie, the angle I’m working at, etc.
So, I don’t think three knots = three different people, but I understand why you may draw that conclusion.
James K Martin was a sick freak who wanted to be thought of as a Hannibal Lecter type to the police for some strange reason. Is he still alive stealing oxygen? I'm guessing no because if he was he would show himself on the WM3 subs. He wouldn't be able to resist. I remember him appearing on some WM3 boards years ago, and it went as well as one would imagine.
The last info I found about him suggested he’d been in a secure psychiatric hospital for a long stretch, but I think that was in the 00’s. No idea if he’s still alive now.
and why take the time to hide their bodies and clothes? if he’s a stranger… just leave.
I’d guess concealing the bodies would give the killer longer to get away from the area. If the bodies were found too quickly the police may have set up roadblocks, pulling over suspect vehicles, etc.
then hide them as well as possible in a few minutes, then get out of there. the way their bodies and clothes were tied to sticks, the sticks then pushed into the mud, that took a While. i would think that would be Much riskier than running.
I think a lot of people anchor their opinions/theories on the basis of a stranger being unable to subdue 3 children however if you look at it from the angle of one child being held at knife or even gun point and telling them if they move their friend will die I think you'll find most 8 year olds would freeze and do as they are told. It's a different mindset as an adult when you realise if you run you might die or get hurt but if you stay and comply you will definitely be at the very least hurt. Children don't think like that, they think if I do as I am told everything will be OK. Also it was a different childhood back then still very much a time of respecting your elders which would have worked in TH favour if it was him and not a stranger.
My biggest worry is we will never know the truth so much evidence has been lost or "lost" who knows what BS the state will come up with if DNA other the WM3 shows up on it they will probably say lack of their dna is not evidence of their innocence and say the DNA found could have gotten their at anytime due to the way in which evidence has been processed and stored over the years.
I don't know who did it but either way nobody is serving time for the murder of those 3 little boys today.
What pisses me off is that the state made sure they won’t have to solve it with the Alford plea. In this era of detectives solving cold cases with DNA breakthroughs and locking up horrible people. We must rely on Damien Echols to solve the case.
They don't need to solve it because it's already been solved.
It hasn't though. If it had, Ellington would not have let the three walk. More importantly you can dig into the evidence yourself and see how horrendously weak it is, even in its totality.
You need to back up your claim about Ellington's motives for letting the three walk. You're pretending to be a mind reader and going directly against what he said about it.
It would be more interesting for you to ask yourself why the WM3's attorneys came up with the suggestion for the Alford Plea when they had an upcoming hearing scheduled of which they were bragging that they were going to "prove their innocence" with the "new evidence" they were holding.
Maybe we can understand being so itchy to get out of prison after all those years, but where is this new evidence?
Nothing is preventing them from from presenting whatever they have, but instead they keep whining about how they didn't get a chance to present it.
The problem with that theory is that one child did escape and was dragged back. That's why his body was found some distance from the others.
Why didn't the other two run off when Micheal Moore was being chased down?
One boy’s body was found some distance from the others.
We don’t know why it was where it was; we don’t know if the boys’ bodies were left in the spots they were killed in, or moved afterwards.
Michael Moore's body being a distance from the others backs up Jessie's confession, which is why it was presented as evidence in court.
You can have your own opinion as to the "why", as did the jury, and the jury believed Jessie's reason.
That's the way our legal system works.
There's also zero evidence that the bodies were later moved.
In a scenario where the boys are killed in the same spots the bodies are found in, where or what point do you think the removal of the clothes and the tying up would have occurred?
They were found submerged in water, so it seems it would’ve been awkward to complete those acts in situ.
I’m open minded on the case, so interested to hear others’ theories on the nitty gritty details, but have to say I don’t find Misskelley credible.
Jessie described it. They had already been stripped naked. They were tied and then pushed down in the mud to keep them from bobbing and being seen in what was just a few feet of water.
I don't think this can even be described as a theory. Sticks were even used to help ensure the bodies didn't break loose from the mud.
Harvest of Innocence is a must-read for anyone following this case. I have so much respect for Dan Stidham...he will not let this go until justice is served.
I loved it and have so much respect for Dan!
at least he got 18 years to rest while those three convicted child killers were behind bars.
It's hard for anyone involved with the case to sleep now. Amen.
Do you think they're guilty?
I don’t think they’re guilty.
I know they are guilty
Based on?
that's bait.
Not surprised.
Where's your evidence of their innocence?
That’s not how it works. That’s the equivalent of “what’s your evidence God doesn’t exist? I win”. It’s a logical fallacy.
And you're actually in the position of the person asking for proof that God does or doesn't exist, which is ironic.
The logical fallacy here is that you have declared them innocent without any evidence that they are innocent, which is reduted by the actual facts and evidence.
That isn't how it works when you have three convicted, confessed, murderers
We're not talking about someone's fantasy guy in the clouds. We're talking about facts and the law.
Jessie made a legal and valid confession. There were two trials in which they were all found guilty. Not one bit of evidence to back up their claims of innocence has ever been revealed in 31 years.
So, on what basic do you make your claim that they are innocent? Is it just something you "feel"?
You are absolutely correct. Asking someone to prove they didn’t commit a crime is ridiculous. It was up to state to prove they did it. To their credit they succeeded. But I don’t know how anyone can look at the case against them today and not have reasonable doubt.
they Never answer this. bc they know Anything they say can be refuted with facts.
What facts do you use for to refute the evidence of their guilt?
For me personally it’s Jesse’s confessions that make me believe they did it. That’s the biggest factor at least.
The confession that constantly changed and never was consistent? Even his confession after his conviction where he changed it again?!?
Edit: awww no one will answer me. Just downvote and move on.
That is by far the best evidence against them. Unfortunately, what Jessie gave were likely false confessions.
He was not resting. He never stopped working on the case. Even when he became a judge, he was still involved. He believes they deserve to be exonerated.
Beside writing his book,, what work did he do on this case all these years?
they deserve to be incinerated at a crematorium.
death penalty is the rest that these three baby killers deserve, and they also belong in hell. soon enough.
Hi. You're right. How are people happy that those psychos are free now.
Do you wonder what Stidham thought about his client confessing to him details of the crime?
Maybe he's running for office and he has to pretend he cares. That's why the prosecutor let the killers out.
You think the state of Arkansas let 3 child killers go free because a local prosecutor wanted to win an election?
How old are you, 12? Please stop commenting.
He was on track to become governor. He alone made the decision.
At the time he thought they were guilty and probably monsters. It wasn’t until later on he figured out that Jessie was lying. I’m not sure if this is why Stidham did such a crappy job of initially defending them or if it was because he was young and inexperienced. Back then less was known about false confessions.
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I never looked at it that way.
You're right, maybe after years of experience he sees things differently.
In an interview Stidham explains he figured it out before the trial. Jessie kept telling Stidham he saw Damien and Jason do it, but kept telling his Dad that he wasn't there. Stidham called him out and said you're afraid to tell your Dad the truth and Jessie replied he was telling his dad the truth and lying to Stidham. Stidham was pissed and asked why he would lie implicating himself??? And Jessie replied he didn't want the electric chair. See the police had successfully convinced Jessie that he was screwed and his best bet was saying he was there and implicating Damien and Jason.
Why do people tag you with long, angry screeds and then block you or delete their post when you go to respond?
What is the purpose of that?
Some people know enough to know they are not guilty but don’t know how to respond to the lame arguments non-supporters make. If you want to argue with someone, argue with me. I’ve painfully went through all of them multiple times when I thought the 3 were guilty. Jessie likely falsely confessed and they rest of the evidence is terrible. A bunch of terrible evidence should not equal a conviction:
Did you actually request for me to start arguing with you and then start deleting your posts that I was responding to?
Really?
I spent a long time typing out facts and resources and you call it "lame".
Calling it "terrible evidence" is a subjective opinion, and as I stated to the ranter, a lack of more solid evidence does not automatically mean innocence.
One of the things the poster came at me with is that Jessie Misskelly had a receipt from a boxing match that night, and that is factually wrong.
People get angry when you present them with facts that don't align with their informed opinion. They can't deal with it for some reason.
But I typed it all out with one finger and now I'm tired, so I'll get back to you later.
They are 100% guilty and most people who study the documents and trial testimony come to that same conclusion. There is zero evidence that Jessie falsely confessed. Jessie himself had confirmed that it was true many times.
I have no problem with you calling out people who state incorrect information, and what he said about a receipt is factually incorrect. And you are correct, a lack of evidence you did, is not proof you didn't do it. However, you are approaching this case with a bias that they did and looking for proof they didn't. That's not how you are supposed to determine guilt in a crime because it's unreasonable to ask someone to prove they didn't do something. Think of the Salem Witch Trials, all those ladies had to do was prove they were not witches. Is the value of evidence subjective? Yes, but we should all be using the same process in determining its value. So I am fascinated with the gap in our opinions. For example the lack of alibis which you see as valuable evidence. I say does not having an alibi prove you commited a crime? And the answer is overwhelmingly NO!!! Then I ask is there another reason they don't have alibis other than they were out committing murders? And the answer is of course!!! Especially back then. I was a teenager back then and my evenings were full of alibi gaps. Is that because I was out committing murders or because teenagers back then generally had crappy alibis once they leave school. Then I ask is it accurate to say they didn't have alibis? And it's not. Jessie had a bunch of people vouch that he went to wrestling that night. So much so, that when he gave his "Bible" confession he even included going to wrestling that night. Jason was smart and didn't talk to the police. And Damien's alibi was corroborated by his family and friends of his family. It was not corroborated by his girlfriends. Read the files, many many people interviewed simply said they don't remember what they were doing that night or gave some lame alibi like they were home, same as Damien. One guy even stated he was at Michael Moores home that afternoon meeting with Todd! Terry's alibi was he was out in the woods between 6-7. Richard Cummings just said he was home at the Mayfield apartments, right next to the crime scene!! What about the teens that offered Michael s sister alcohol at the entrance to woods, what was their alibi? How about the teens who's weapons were found in the woods and were hanging around that day. How solid are their alibis? Why do you let all these other suspects off the hook when they had much worse alibis? And what was Tim Cottons alibi? You know the guy that was seen muddy leaving the woods that night and later claimed LG Hollingsworth was the real killer along with Mark Byers.
First explain how you came up with the ridiculous assumption (lie) that I had an opinion on guilt and a bias when I started out, and then we'll talk about how sadly misinformed you are.
You're even called the facts I've posted "opinions". They are not. They are facts.
I hate liars and those who spread misinformation.
You don't even know the simple fact that the wrestling ring was closed that night, verified by the owner.
The receipt that was presented was from a different date. It was actually from April.
Go back to school and argue your case when you know what you're talking about.
Woo hoo!!! This makes me so happy.
Wouldn't it be terrific if this was solved? I would love to know that the remaining family had a solid answer.
Can someone bring me up to speed with this, didn’t they find loads of “lost” evidence? A bike and bindings and what not, weren’t tests done on these items a few years ago ?
I smell a second book!!
Hoping the new DNA testing will give the relatives of these families answers. Wonder how long it takes though. Even so, having the confirmation that it will be tested is great.
Stidham’s theory about the true killer being a long-haul truck driver is something I haven’t seen or really considered before.