Anybody have strong feelings about the West Memphis Three case?

So back in the 1990s, the triple homicide of three children rocked the West Memphis, Arkansas community. WMPD would go on and successfully prosecute three teenagers for the crime, basically alleging that they did it as a Satan worshipping sacrifice. HBO filmed the trial for the documentary Paradise Lost which ended up being very partial to the defendants and got the case quite a bit of notoriety.
After serving 18 years, the defendants (now widely know as the West Memphis 3 or WM3) were granted a retrial. Realistically, it would have been very very difficult for the state to present a solid case as a.) they barely had enough stuff to get the conviction in 1995 and b.) some prosecution witnesses had died or moved or forgotten, so it was going to be a bitch ass retrial for the state of Arkansas.
The two sides reached a compromise, where the WM3 submitted an Alford Plea and were released on time served. Taking an Alford Plea means you plead guilty by admitting that the state has enough evidence to convict you, but you keep the right to proclaim your innocence. By this time celebrities and HBO and the movie West of Memphis made this a high profile case and this ending was very unsatisfying for both sides.
WMPD's shitty ass investigation has not given us any answers, HBO has muddied the water by putting out heavily biased (they are teh innocent!!) docs, which in turn celebrities saw and then preached to their fans about (most notably Henry Rollins, Eddie Vedder and Stephen King).
So now when you meet someone who is vaguely familiar with the case, they usually are familiar with it because of the docs or their fave celebrity ranting about those poor innocent teenagers being railroaded by white trash cops, etc.
I'm 78% sure the WM3 are guilty, but I also don't think the state showed enough in court to have convicted them in the first place. Anybody have strong feelings either way about this case or some interesting original thoughts on the matter?
It's my favorite court case of all time, so if anyone else is into it, please share your ideas so we can discuss

 

I'm pretty sure they weren't guilty and even if they were, there is no way on earth they should have ever been convicted based on the pretty much zero evidence the prosecution had.

It's only in the last couple of years that there's been a trend of people saying they think they are guilty.
But it's like with every single thing - there's always people who are going to have a completely different view.
I mean, some people think the earth is flat.
There are people who will give you 'evidence' that Elvis is still alive etc.

 

I'm 78% sure they are innocent.

 

The trend of people saying they are guilty is based on researching the case tho, while the Free the WM3 trend is based on propaganda.
Plus the "they are innocent" movement is pathetic because they went with the "John Byers did it!!" theory in the first HBO doc... then did a 180% and now it's "nevermind, Byers is kewl, Terry Hobbs did it for sure!!"
Only that theory has even less evidence then the state had against them.
I do agree that the conviction is BS tho. Seeming guilty should not get you locked up when the state can't prove a god damn thing

 

big thread on this already i think, lots of opinions in it... I think they are innocent, thats why people in the town changed there minds and the court system let them go ..Even some of the parents came out and said they thought they arrested the wrong people once things calmed down and the witch hunt ended

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/whats-your-verdict-on-the-west-memphis-3.3315857/

 

I started a War Room thread about a year ago that had some good discussion, but if I'm missing a good thread about this please point me to it.
The parents thing is a red herring tho, IMO. The only parents I can take seriously now have always maintained their guilty stance.
John Mark Byers joined the "free the WM3" movement after his wife died and it worked for him since he was being outright accused of this terrible crime. His ganging up with them to accuse Terry Hobbs is pretty pathetic in my eyes since he knows what being baselessly accused feels like. Pamela Hobbs is a spurned ex wife who got beat up, so her accusing Terry just doesn't hold a lot of weight since she doesn't have any inside info of any sort. Michael Moore's parents are the only normal parents of any of the victims and they think Damien, Jason and Jessie did it.
I really resent the "witch hunt" narrative that came out of the HBO docs. The whole point of the movies is trying to convince the audience that they were convicted because they listened to Metallica and wore black t-shirts while minimizing numerous confessions, ignoring the lack of alibis and so on.
The docs even keep pushing stupid shit like "Jessie was wrestling in another town" when it's been proven to be BS. And for some reason they keep on pushing the interrogated for 12 hours shit, when the timeline clearly shows Jessie confesses in 4 hours and a portion of it is spent finding his dad to sign release forms since Jessie is a minor. I think it's very telling that Jessie's dad clearly thinks he is guilty and is morally struggling with how you deal with your family being guilty of such a thing.

 

i edited my post with the link while u were typing that probably

 

Sh

ah, thank you!!!

 

I watched the docos and thought they were 100% innocent back when I was a teenager. When that other thread popped up and people mentioned it was not so clear cut I then examined all the original evidence. I feel there was enough evidence to take them to trial and enough evidence to convict them. The boys were far from normal and innocent in other instances (Damien attacking other kids to suck their blood, etc.). Whether they are truly guilty no one can say for certain, but the conviction was far from the outrage it was made out to be.

 

How was there enough 'evidence' to convict them?
Someone's opinion of them being 'far from normal' certainly isn't evidence they murdered three kids.

 

Well the original documentaries, like every single documentary ever made, is certainly biased to one side.
And to be fair, I think 99% of people who watched them at the time thought Mark Byers did it and you can't blame them for that because it's the conclusion most people would come to after seeing the documentaries.

But the entire theory that they were guilty seems to hinge on Damien Echol's mental issues and the length of time Miskelley was interrogated for.
Neither changes anything in my opinion.

 

I can't remember all the evidence off the top of my head but there alibis were straight out lies (and actually suspicious), there was a detailed confession, suspected murder weapon found where the kids said it would be and the whole Damien being a legit weirdo (and not just some kid who loves Metallica). There was also a lack of other legit suspects (Mr Bongales/Parents having less evidence against them than the kids). In regards to definitive proof, most murder's dont have any such evidence.

 

Well regards the murder weapon, it's also thought that the kids were not even killed by a knife and that the wounds were clearly caused by animals after death. So the finding of knives in lakes means very little.

Again, it depends what sources you read and *most importantly* what sources you choose to belief to suit your own bias.
Something which we are ALL guilty of regardless of how open minded we all claim to be.

 

I consulted the court evidence. From memory that animal stuff isn't a well regarded theory. Also some evidence suggested the hilt of the knife was used to bash the kids (I am always a little suspicious of all forensic evidence, its hard to prove this stuff either way 100% and human bias plays a big role. An expert can lean either day depending on whose paying them).

There is other circumstantial evidence as well, such as the knots on all three boys differ, suggesting three different people were involved (which if true debunks most of their supporter's theories). Again we cannot say for certain either way what happened, but the narrative that three young whippersnappers were framed for a murder in redneck America because they liked Heavy Metal is bullshit.

I was shocked that so much of the evidence or interesting facts against the kids were left out of the documentaries. The second one was just a joke, by burying the dad into the creek to let him bury and set fire to those straw dummies. That doco was obviously for the money.

A lesson I did learn from all this is that I do not want to live anywhere near that shithole. I would honestly rather live Afghanistan than have to deal with neighbours like those presented in the documentaries (on all sides of the case). Yuck.

 

Well said, West Memphis comes off a total shithole where you can accuse any number of people of a crime like this and it would add up.
Fuck, even the victims were fucked up, Stevie Branch was in trouble at school because he literally threw his feces at other kids, like that doesn't sound anything like the school I went to growing up, holy shit

 

Haha I didn't know that! Yeah....fuck that place. Especially pre internet.

 

All the court evidence that hints that the WM3 may have been involved has all been discounted. By sources and people who think they were innocent.
And vice versa. And on and on it goes.

For anyone to say they are 100% sure they are innocent OR guilty are the ones talking shit.

 

What do you mean discounted? There was an outright detailed confession and no legit alibi (that was not a lie).

Supporters claim the confession doesn't count because Jessie was mentally handicapped, but he was not completely incompetent, and his confession was very detailed. His interrogation didn't last for days or anything, he was actually treated quite fairly by the police but he insisted on confessing. Furthermore, he continued to confess after the initial confession, something that is often overlooked.

 

Discounted because people will point to his mental age, point to him being fed information by police (the interview was not fully logged oddly enough), point to him later saying he was pretty much forced into confession.
All very similar to the retard in the 'Making a Murderer' case where the interrogation was filmed and it was very clear he was fed information and was simply too stupid to comprehend how what he said could land them in deep trouble.
And yes he confessed numerous times, but he also proclaimed their innocence numerous times. It depends on your bias which side you veer to.

Saying he was 'treated fairly' by police simply isn't true and is just your own bias talking. There is absolutely no way at all to prove he was treated fairly or to treat anything he said with much credence.

I'm not saying the claims of his mistreatment may have been exaggerated but, again, almost every single thing in the case can be discounted one way or the other apart from the fact that three children were murdered and three boys went to prison with little or no evidence against them.