Arella Mae
I don't think you are going to find any answers in a book or a movie. Since there is so little physical evidence, the truth imo, will have to come from the killer themself and even that may never come. So sad for everyone involved
Will still wait to see what you post though.
Hey TTH,
I'm afraid you probably are right. It seems the more I read and watch the more questions I have. I read some more this afternoon and was totally shocked that Mark Byers was a confidential drug informant. Kind of puts a whole new spin on things for me already.
I am trying to write down everything I have questions about and really trying to wait until I read this whole book before I make any determinations.
They didn't put that in the videos that I remember (about Mark Byers). The whole situation is sad because it is questioning if the right people are convicted. The judges have to go by the law though. If there is nothing to justify another trial then the 3 stay convicted pending going through the process of appeals.
Hubby brought up a pretty intriguing thought. It is obvious that the boys were not murdered where they were found. So how could they accept Misskelly's confession?
Arella, confessions are acceptable when prosecutors focus on the parts of the confession that are "credible", ie. match forensic evidence, and explain away discrepancies as being due to faulty memory. it's often claimed that our adversarial system of justice is the best there is, but it troubles me that the motivation of the principals is winning, rather than searching for the truth.
wandeljw wrote:A respected London newspaper has provided an interesting perspective on this case:
Quote:Satanist case may close death row
(John Harlow, The Sunday Times, December 30, 2007)......
The case dates back to a warm summer night in May 1993 when the bodies of three eight-year-old boys - James Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers - were found in a creek near their home........
According to the video the bodies were NOT found in the creek and this writer said they were.
If the murders were committed in the creek, then maybe the blood was washed downstream.
According to Devil's Knot the bodies were found in the creek. And they weren't just floating there for anyone to see. A detective spied a tennis shoe and he walked into the creek and started feeling around, which would account for the fact that Mark Byers did not see the bodies when he searched the area the night before.
As to the murders being committed in the creek, I don't see how that would be possible. How would you tie someone up in that manner in the water? How could the mutilation done on Christopher Byers (which a doctor said would take time, light, and precision) be done in the water?
I do believe the bodies were intentionally thrown into the creek to wash away physical evidence, which leads me to believe this/these was/were an organized killer/killers that was/were not idiot/idiots when it came to evidence. I really don't have a firm opinion as to whether the murders were committed by one person or more than one.
Arella Mae wrote:As to the murders being committed in the creek, I don't see how that would be possible. How would you tie someone up in that manner in the water? How could the mutilation done on Christopher Byers (which a doctor said would take time, light, and precision) be done in the water?
You can tie up someone before you put them in the creek. Wasn't there two experts with opposing opinions with respect to the mutilation?
btw I was confused on whether the creek even had water in it. It didn't look like it in the pictures and I wrote "water?" in my notes.
I couldn't find any dimensions, etc., on the creek. I emailed the Arkansas Waterways Commission and asked them if they could tell me anything about that particular creek. I will let you know what they reply, if anything.
Yeah, the water part really confused me because in the tapes I don't recall ever seeing any water. They mentioned a stream but, the pictures didn't show one with water. It was dry from what I recall. I might just go back and find that video. If I do, I will let you know.
Just saw your post about the email btw
I am so torn about this. On one hand the book at first makes it look like there was a great deal of police investigation of a lot of people, many polygraphs, etc. But when it comes to Damien Echols' polygraph? They didn't record it? The results aren't in the police file? Someone "said" that he was deceptive and involved?
Even if Damien had committed what he has been convicted of I am shocked at the obvious incompetency in this case. I still have a lot to read but man, this is most perplexing!
I just spent all night watching the videos and reading what you all added here and I'm convinced that those three are innocent. There's no evidence to prove their guilt and I believed them.
I also watched an interview with a women investigating the case for a long time (don't remember her name, where there was a report of a man that went into a resteraunt or store covered in blood. They called the police and a towel covered in blood was handed over to the police, which was never followed up on. When asked about it, the police claimed to have lost it.
The weird step father kept me watching him because he was totally out of it, but a brain tumor would explain that.
I truly believe these guys are innocent.
I'm keeping an eye on this Hobbs guy.
Oh, I also don't remember seeing any water in that creek and I think I would have noticed that. I'll have to go back and check it out when I get the chance.
Also, such a blatant discrepancy as where the bodies were found and the actual murders taking place I would think is hardly explainable.