I'd like to forward this.

HBO has done three documentaries about this case over the last decade called Paradise Lost

As for online, wiki's a good place to start, and there are many reference links on the wiki page. (In light of your question I added this link to the OP as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

They're in the business of getting convictions.

a satanist the previous year for having black nail polish and doodling pentegrams and the cop had consulted an "expert on the occult" (Some demented RW weirdo) about it, so when they found the dead children a year later the cops just went to the "known" satanist's associates demanding confessions.

quite as clear as the PL documentaries have made it seem. I think people should look at both sides, here's one of those swimming against the current: http://wm3truth.com/

I'm usually hesitant to discuss this case although I find it fascinating. Both sides are so sure they are right and can get pretty obnoxious. Both sides have their talking points down pat and it's kind of irritating. It's an extremely complicated case and it was most definitely bungled. I initially thought they were innocent based on what I had heard from the supporters but the more I looked into it, I realized that the supporters were doing the same thing they accused the police and prosecution of doing-cherry picking the evidence and ignoring any fact that wasn't convenient to their "side." Mostly, I find Jesse's multiple confessions troubling, particularly the one he made to his own lawyer.

They always tend toward a point of view.

The other side is very "motivated"... very partisan and fast with bold interpretation of the facts. So are the defenders, of course.

To me it was always clear that their trial did not seek justice. That's about the trial, not about them.

I always felt they deserved a civilized trial where guilt could be found or not. Their factual innocence reached a level of confidence when the state released them. They had a confession from one and multiple accounts of the other bragging about being the killer. They have what they claimed to be the murder weapon, and plenty of evidence of the injuries.

They could have re-tried them. They didn't. They know better than I what they really have or don't have.

If there was any chance they were guilty and the State decided to avoid a re-trial in exchange for time served then what was the state saying? That they were letting these killers loose on the public rather than have a trial where the state could lose nothing? (They had served the time served either way.)

And yes, the hair under the ligature could be transfer evidence... but when you have six people in a murderous, dis-organized brawl and rape and butchering and the only physical evidence you get is a hair from a seventh person?

I don't lack a critical eye. For instance, the defense theory of the genital mutilation changed 180 degrees between Paradise Lost 1 and Paradise Lost 3. A lot of stuff is genralized, exagerated, glossed over. If two of the victims died of drowning then it's hard to picture the dumping in the creek of bodies killed elsewhere.

I know that I do not "know" what happened. I have learned over the years that one can be surprised and that everyone's story is partisan. I grew up thinking Whittaker Chambers was innocent and Sam Shepard was guilty.

But I do know that the original trial was a farce was insufficient to convince me of guilt, including the introduction of a murder weapon the state surely knew was not the murder weapon and a RW loon witch doctor. And that when faced with the possibility of a new trial the State decided to let them go instead.

That really says a lot.

Anyway, I am not a WM3 hobbyist so I don't claim to have anything to add to the debate.

But the state's stance (what the OP is mostly about) is outragous if they are innocent and even more outrageous if they are guilty.

The public should be protected from them if they are guilty.

I've seem all the films and am convinced of their innocence, although I certainly want to hear all sides, because if I'm wrong, I want to know. Since the author of that site repeatedly accuses the filmmakers of omitting key evidence, I scanned through their evidence section to see what that might be. Seems like all they've got is details of the coerced confession of Jessie Misskelley, the thoroughly discredited witness testimony and what they claim is one piece of physical evidence: a necklace taken from Damian which had a trace of blood that was a match for one of the victims. I looked this up and apparently the blood traces on the necklace were so minute, the lab was only able to determine the general blood type - a match for a large segment of the population! The fact that the site author doesn't point this out is so dishonest, I wouldn't trust anything he had to say.

So what IS the other side of the story? I've yet to hear anything compelling pointing to their guilt.

I too was surprised to find Mark Byers has been cleared, after seeing so much of his bizarre and creepy behavior in the films. But that's why we shouldn't condemn people on hunches and gut feelings alone! Turns out he was just an attention-starved weirdo.

The most disturbing thing of all is that if the HBO filmmakers hadn't shown up, the Flyover State of Arkansas would have absolutely gotten away with murdering those boys, and you know that happens all the damn time. What is wrong with these cops and prosecutors that they will let innocent peoples lives be destroyed for the sake of their own careers? It's horrifying.

It reads like free republic. Same code language. Same style of argument. Paranoid tone. Does not inspire confidence.

"The thing is, for at least a decade everyone has had a pretty good idea of the real prime suspect--the step-father of one of the victims."

There have actually been two different stepfathers suspected over the past ten years, at different times. A lot of people get the two confused or think the recent developments refer to the first one who was suspected.

Ten years ago, all the WM3 supporters thought John Mark Byers (Christopher's stepdad) was the murderer. They would cite his erratic behavior in PL1, the knife he gave to someone associated with the filming and the fact that he had his teeth removed as evidence that he was the guilty party. Paradise Lost 2 goes into all of this fairly extensively and sure makes him look guilty. JMB is no longer considered a suspect by most supporters and has actually become one of the most outspoken supporters of the WM3. He posts fairly frequently on various WM3 boards. Even the film makers of PL 1, 2 & 3, Berlinger and Sinofsky, no longer think he is guilty.

The new prime suspect is a different stepfather, Terry Hobbs. This is a fairly recent development. When the defense tested a hair found in the knot of one of the boys shoes, the DNA came back as consistent with Terry Hobbs. Other DNA was consistent with a friend of Hobbs, David Jacoby. It was Terry who sued Natalie Maines and though I haven't seen PL3 yet, I hear it focuses on Terry. (He has been questioned by the police and the video is available on YouTube.) He was the stepfather of Stevie Branch. His ex-wife, Pam Hobbs, said she found a pocket knife amoung Terry's possessions that belonged to Stevie and that Stevie always had it with him. When it was not returned after the murders, she assumed the murderer had it. (Interesting sidenote-Reese Witherspoon just signed to play Pam in the film based on Mara Leveritt's book, Devil's Knot.)

I've followed this case pretty closely-watched both movies, read Devil's Knot, read trial transcripts and transcripts of Jesse's confessions, etc. I was really hoping there would be a new trial. I am not convinced the WM3 are innocent but I definitely thought they deserved a new trial.

But may well have conflated them between PL2 and PL3. I know much less about this case than probably dozens of people who will read this.

Almost everything in PI1 was turned around by PI3... the lawyers involved at the time of PI1 were not very god and had some theories that were obviously way off. The innocence angle was always provisional, in my mind. But the trial was a joke.

So, like you, I think a new trial was warranted. Either way, guilty or innocent, whoever did the crime should be in prison.

I don't have HBO so I haven't seen it yet. I was wondering if it's any good.

Peter Jackson has a WM3 documentary about the case coming out soon, too, called West of Memphis.

The defense forensic case is completely different from most of what was claimed in PI1, but is more plausible. Instead of all the weirdness about the surgical quality of the injuries the new (and much more experienced) forensic expert looked at the pictures and went, "This is all from animals... the scratches, the missing penis."

That state's arguments before the Arkansas supreme court are really something.

There's a whole jury misconduct angle that's kind of dull, but important in an appeal.

Mostly though, anyone who has watched enough jail house interviews will recognize Hobbs immediately... it's all like a death row interview. He seems to think the whole thing is funny, like he's in this psychotic battle of wits with the interviewer, or lawyer, or whoever is asking him things. Answering questions of guilt in this weird teasing way. If he wites a book called "If I did it..." I won't be surprised. Maybe he didn't kill these kids but he's done some bad shit. (PL3 includes taped depositions from the Maines suit so it's pretty interesting.)

I read one of your earlier comments and wanted to throw in that I discount almost all confessions to anyone. The problem is that we have heard too many people give intricate confessions to things we know for a fact they didn't do. People are fucked up. They do weird things for weird reasons. I would want to hear tape of every interaction with the police before the confession. Hell, did he really even understand that his lawyer was separate from the police?

I don't think I could be induced to confess to something so easily, but who knows?

When I watched Paradise 1, I suspected him almost more than Byers. He was totally under the radar at that point and everyone was pointing at Byers back then but there is this one scene in PL1 that just took my breath away. I forget exactly what happened-I think it was during Jesse's trial and might have even been at the guilty verdict. They cut to Terry Hobbs and he had the strangest look on his face like he just could not believe what he had just heard. I called it his Kardasian face because it was the exact same look Robert Kardasian had on his face when OJ was found not guilty. It was bizarre. After the movie my husband was saying I think that crazy stepfather did it (Byers) and I said I think it might have been that other stepfather-the quiet curly headed one. If you ever watch PL1 again, look for that scene. It's very strange.

I hear you on the confession thing. One of the reasons I became interested in this case was because I was involved in a very similar case in the late 80's. Three teenagers accused of murdering a fourth teen, a coerced confession, even a satanic panic element and a small town justice system that was so fucked up I couldn't believe it. I was the counselor for one of the kids and I'm still convinced he got a very raw deal and he's still in prison. So, I was definitely predisposed to think these guys were innocent and I am appalled at the way this whole trial went down. But...as for their innocence...I just don't know. It's just not as clear to me as the documentaries and supporter sites try to make it. I don't think they should have been found guilty based on the evidence presented, especially not at Damien and Jason's trial, but there were a number of things in the documentaries and the book that gave me pause. That's why I was really hoping for a new trial. I wanted both sides to be at the top of their game and lay out their best case once and for all. And I do agree with you that it sucks that Arkansas made this deal. If they think the 3 are guilty, (and I actually believe that they DO think that,) they should have gone forward with the new trial. I think it was about the money plus they knew they had fucked up the investigation and first trials and were afraid of looking like yokels.

I'm not quite one of those who "live and breathe" the case, but I'm quite familiar with it, being from Arkansas, into true crime, and Pagan.

The reaction on supporter and non-supporter forums was the same, pretty much... "WHAT THE FLYING FUCK!!!!" For different reasons, of course.

Damien, Jason, and Jessie have to live with criminal convictions on their records which will make it nearly impossible for them to find jobs (particularly in Jessie's case, given that he's not likely to go to college or get enough training in a field to make up for the stigma of three child murder convictions). If they're innocent, it's a gross miscarriage of justice, and the real killers remain free.

On the other hand, if they're guilty... the real killers are now free.

guilty.

... and the forum I was referencing where they felt that way is one that Todd Moore posts in.

The case is very hotly debated and there are strong feelings on all sides. There's no way anyone can look at this case, especially if they watch Paradise Lost I, and not see just how absolutely devastating it is to lose children. Todd and Dana were the one couple that hadn't experienced divorce before the murders -- and even they ended up divorcing in the end because of the stress losing their son put on their marriage.

While I hope that Todd and Dana eventually find peace, I think it will only come when they put someone away for the crime. And the State of Arkansas isn't interested in doing that.

Everyone knows the bullshit of this trumped-up case. "I saw 'is sha-doe." Really? How dumb can people be?