Crime Weekly - S3 Ep121: West Memphis Three: Trials and Tribulations (Part 7)

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

West Memphis, Arkansas is located in Crittenden County and is directly across the Mississippi River from Memphis Tennessee, but in 1993, West Memphis and Memphis were worlds apart. Memphis boasted a healthy and growing population of over 620 thousand, while West Memphis had just over 28 thousand residents. But Memphis, TN struggled with high crime rates, with 1993 setting a record for the most homicides in one year, a record that wasn’t broken until 2016. West Memphis Arkansas had a more small town, laid back feel, and as cliche as it sounds, people felt safe leaving their doors unlocked and letting their young children play outside all day with no supervision. That was until May 5th, 1993, when three eight year old boys rode away on their bikes, eager to expel the energy they had built up all day while sitting in their second grade classrooms at Weaver Elementary School, but they never came home. It wouldn’t be long before the residents of West Memphis and then the world found out what happened to Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers. Their battered and mutilated bodies were found the next day in a swampy wooded area known to locals as Robin Hood Hills, and the community of West Memphis felt a shockwave hit their community that they would not recover from for some time. Within a month three teenagers were arrested and charged with capital murder, and it wasn’t long before whispers of witchcraft, devil worship and occult killings rippled throught the homes and businesses of West Memphis, and those whispers eventually turned into a loud roar, a roar that might accompany an angry mob looking for someone to blame for an unimaginable tragedy, akin to the infamous witch hunts that are dotted throughout history. This is the story of six boys from West Memphis, Arkansas; three were brutally murdered and stolen from this world far before their time, the other three were marched to the proverbial gallows, guilty in the court of public opinion, and found guilty in an actual court of law. Six lives destroyed, six lives forever changed, six lives eternally tied together. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: 1. ZipRecruiter Go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter FOR FREE: ZipRecruiter.com/crimeweekly. 2. Gametime Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CRIMEWEEKLY for $20 off your first purchase. 3. DailyHarvest Stop settling with your next meal and try Daily Harvest. Go to DAILYHARVEST.com/crimeweekly to get up to sixty-five dollars off your first box. 4. PrettyLitter Go to PrettyLitter.com/crimeweekly and use code crimeweekly to save twenty percent on your FIRST order. 5. PDS Debt PDS DEBT is offering free debt analysis to our listeners just for completing the quick and easy debt assessment at www.PDSDebt.com/crime. That’s P-D-S-D-E-B-T.com/crime.

Montgomery County is asking property owners and landscapers to rethink how they do yard care. To protect air quality and worker health, as well as reduce noise, gas-powered leaf blowers are banned in Montgomery County after July 1, 2025. Get an early start and plan now to invest in electric leaf blowers or grab a rake. Local retailers have resources in battery leaf blowers. Visit montgomerycountymd.gov slash leaf blowers for more information. Craftsman days are here at Lowe's with big savings on the tools you need. Right now, get a free select tool when you buy the Craftsman V20 2-Pack Battery Kit.

Whether it's the backyard, the bathroom, or beyond, Craftsman has the tools to help you power through and get the project done right. Because DIYing is unpredictable, but your tools shouldn't be. Shop Craftsman at Lowe's today. Valid through 618. While supplies last. Selection varies by location. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur.

So today we are diving into part seven. Is this part seven? It is part seven. Yeah, I actually labeled the script part infinity because I had no idea where we were at at this point. But so we've got today's video with the West Memphis three. And then we have next week is the final part. And next week's going to be probably a longer episode because we're going over basically all the alternate suspects. And that's when we're going to talk about Terry Hobbs and John Mark Byers and, you know, a few other extraneous suspects like Mr. Bojangles, people that could be involved

with these murders if it's not Damian, Jason and Jesse. So we are going to probably finish up with eight parts. And I mean, there's so much like that was the hard thing about this case. There's so much that I could talk about, even as far as like what happened to some of these detectives, you know, after after they were done with this case and what happened to the district attorney, John Fogelman and like kind of even Gary Gitchell, like kind of things that they did that did cause some suspicion. And like maybe people were wondering, were they on the up and up and things like that? But there's just so much um i i definitely suggest that you look into this case more yourself if you're left wanting to know everything there's just no possible way we could put everything into the series because some people would not mind if it's 20 parts but i think some others would yeah there were some people who

emailed me and DMed me about this case and they're in the mindset of, they're of the mindset that these three did actually do this. And they had directed me to some websites. And one of the big things that they had talked about, and I'll explain why we're not going into depth at this. I totally, after reading it and watching it myself, all the links that you guys sent me, I understand why we're doing it the way we're doing it. Because the one big thing is Jesse on paper apparently was asked 19 times if he understood what he was doing. There was even a point where there's this conversation between his lawyer and the detectives where they're both saying, both the lawyer and detective are saying,

hey, listen, Jesse, we're advising you not to say anything. We're advising you not to give a statement right now. Do you understand what we're saying? And Jesse in the transcript says like, yep, I understand, but there's something that has to be done. And his lawyer literally says like, you know, I'm not a fan of these guys, these detectives, but this is one instance where I agree with them. Like you should not speak right now. Do you understand that? Yep. No, I still want to give a statement. So I know the mindset of, okay, he was told 19 times or given the opportunity. That's after everything else. the whole thing. Like if you have a cup of water and I say, and you put one drop of poison in there and I empty out half the cup, you're still not going to drink that water. The whole thing is

done at that point. You know, that's a kind of a shitty analogy, but you get the gist. And so I get where you're coming from. And I'm never going to say, unless I have definitive proof, like these people did not do this a hundred percent, I'll put my life on it. We're covering these cases pretty extensively, but there's always more. And that's why what Stephanie's saying is so true. We're not trying to convince you of anything. We're giving our perspective on it. We're covering, this is probably going to be close to 16, 18 hours of edited footage that you're getting from us. And there's still more. So do your due diligence,

like Stephanie said, and research it yourself. And you may not agree with us, and that's great, because we're just coming up with our own perspective, and you're entitled to yours. But as far as that one thing, because I did get it out from a couple people, I see where you're coming from, I heard you out, and there may be truth to that. But unfortunately, with what happened prior to it, I can't look at it and give it the same level of credibility that I would if it had been done the right way. That's all I'm saying. So whether they are guilty or innocent, that's one question. Whether I think what was done and what was transcribed can be used in a court of law,

that's a different thing. And that's why I feel that these three individuals shouldn't have been found guilty because the foundation of what they were found guilty on, which was Jesse Miskelley's confession, it's weak at best because of the circumstances surrounding it, not necessarily what he said or what he didn't say. So that was just one thing. I had a couple other house cleaning things if I can get to it, but I know I'll wait for you if you had something else. Yeah, I'm actually glad you brought up that people have been sending you things like I'm not a ton, by the way. Not a ton.

Well, I've been getting it, too. And I will tell you, like, I'm glad because. Yeah, me too, right? Yeah. But some of this stuff like is so easy. Some of the stuff that they're sending and it's usually the same sort of like core things that they're saying, like, well, this is why they're guilty, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right. And one of the things that they say is like, oh, there was so much blood at the crime scene. Right. And they say that there was no blood.

And the people who like defend the West Memphis three, they say the people who defend the West Memphis three say there was no blood at the crime scene. But there was blood because the police went back later and they did the luminol testing and blah, blah, blah. I don't know what they're talking about because we saw the luminol testing. There was no blood as in like this was a bloody crime scene. There was blood where like the police had pulled the bodies out and then laid them on the bank. So there was some blood in like those areas. And in this episode we're about to do, you will hear numerous times, not only the defense team, but the prosecution team and the expert witnesses. They will constantly say there was no blood at the crime scene. So it's not just the defenders of the West Memphis three who say that there was no blood at the crime scene. Every single person involved in this case says it multiple times. So it's like,

I don't know, like, I think some of these people who are looking at only they're looking at only one side of it. And it's a little bit misguided because they're not looking at any of the evidence that supports the innocence of these three these three people they're just kind of like looking at the other stuff and assuming that they're getting the full story and if you're only looking at one or two sources and those sources are biased towards one side or the other you're not getting the full story yeah and i think there's a difference between whether you think they did it or whether you think they should have been found guilty it's two different things obviously and to their defense i will say what I was reading was not something they had like put together. It was the transcript. And I'll be

the first to tell you, I read the transcript the exact way you sent it to me. And it's all there, right? Like it's their words. And 100%, they even said like, are we promising you anything or anything like that? And I get it. I'm in black and white. It's right there. But the reality is, if I'm Jesse Miskelly and off the record, I'm passively being told like this could result in you getting some money for you and your family. When they hit the recorder, I'm not going to say, yep, I've been promised money. I know what I'm not supposed to say. I know what I'm supposed to say. So I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but that's just common sense.

Oh, were you promised anything? No, no, of course not. I'm doing it to put words in his mouth, but that's just common sense. Oh, were you promised anything? No, no, of course not. I'm doing it because it was right. So the fact that those things happened, it just, it puts a bad taste in my mouth. And I do think that the interrogation that was conducted was very leading. That wasn't just my opinion. That's the opinion of other experts who are way more advanced in interviews, interrogations than I am.

So in the law enforcement community, I think if you took a poll from 20 interrogators, the majority of them are going to say the same thing as far as how this interview was conducted. They have. They absolutely have. It just, it wasn't well done. And that unfortunately can hurt a case. But I do appreciate you submitting stuff,

especially when you attach the transcripts for them. That's awesome. I like looking at this stuff, especially when we're covering a case this deep. So keep it coming. I'm not discrediting it or frowning upon it and saying you shouldn't. I love it.

And I acknowledge you. And I know it's not just that one person. For everybody who feels the same way, there are some things, I think even for Stephanie, that make you raise an eyebrow where you're like, huh, that don't look good. You know what I mean?

Like there's something, there's some things there for sure. yeah and in this case very few to be completely frank to be completely frank like i'm having to like really dig deep and really squint to and like i'm sorry would you agree the biggest thing is the fact that like jesse just kept saying that they did it and i do believe there's some truth to the fact that like he confessed to these The patrolmen or the guardsmen that were transporting him after court I don't know why he's doing it because I don't know if they told it cuz they told him that they're gonna bring his girlfriend To see him in prison jail

Yes, like that's then you have to understand like not only did he he did he get messed up? He's not he's not great mentally to begin with. All right, that's that's true. They have it in here. up, he's not great mentally to begin with. That's proof. They have it in here. Yeah. He's not brilliant. Yeah. He's not even of average intelligence.

A. So right there, this should have been a no-go for them. Okay? They purposely picked the weak link. Like, we know this. You said that police do this. Oh, I would have done the same thing. Exactly.

So they purposely picked the weak link, but not to get in my opinion, not to get the truth from him to orchestrate the truth with him. He was going to be the most suggestible and he was going to be the one most likely to go along with whatever the hell they wanted. So they knew if they didn't have any physical evidence, which we know they didn't. OK, if they didn't have that, at least they would have a cooperating witness. Yeah. But then they didn't even have that because he didn't go forward and actually testify, even though they offered him things in return. That means something. I agree.

Later on, Jason Baldwin is going to be offered a pretty sweet deal while he's sitting there looking at life in prison for a capital murder of three eight-year-olds, he's going to be offered a deal if he turns on Damien. He says no. If there was any guilt there, these are kids. They don't have serious loyalty. They're not like thin blue line or in the military where they got each other's back. I am Spartacus. It's not that.

Like they're kids and they're going to save their own asses however they can. Jesse did for a while, you know, but when the push came to shove, he wasn't going to, you know, go through it and be responsible for sending people he knew, two innocent people, to death row basically because Damien ends up getting put on death row, right? So no, like kids are going to save their own asses if they especially kids like that who come from like not great backgrounds they got to be scrappy they they kind of have always learned to watch out for themselves and they kind of always learned and nobody's gonna like take care of you you got to take care of

yourself they're gonna turn on each other if they can but they didn't and that means something yeah that's because they probably didn't have anything to give thank They didn't get shit. So no, I just want to put it out there. It's not to discredit anybody just to say, Hey, listen, glad you're sending it. Read it, heard it. I feel like whether it's true or not at this point, I can't tell because of the conduct that was, you know, carried out before it, the camp, you know, the recorders were turned on lighter news, two things. First new studio setup background. It's going to get better, but this is the panels that I've been telling you guys about. If you're following us on Patreon. It looks so good.

It looks pretty good. And overall, I think it sounds good. I want to hear from you guys though, because I want to know if it's, if you guys are consuming it the right way where it's okay, Derek, this looks good. It sounds good. We enjoy it. If there's constructive criticism, I am actually asking for it because I'm making improvements. You can't see it, but I got things all over the place. Plenty of room to grow in here. I have some ideas myself, but I want to hear from you guys too, because you're the ones that are coming back and watching or listening every week. I'm hoping you guys are hearing some improvement in the audio even before last week where I said that was different. Most of you corrected me and said it wasn't. So that's good, but I'm hoping it even sounds better than it, than it ever has before with now all the,

the improvements we put into the sound isolation in this room. So that should, that should really help. And then finally, if you haven't already noticed a lot of the crew necks are back in stock, criminal coffee. For those of you who are listening on audio, I'm wearing the oatmeal crewneck right now. It's super soft. Love it. Obviously, coffee is still going out. We have an announcement coming about the coffee in the next couple of weeks. It's a big announcement, something we've been working on for a while.

Many of you have been requesting this thing that's coming out soon, so you probably already know where I'm going with it. But, yeah, so we have the coffee announcement coming soon uh merch is back in stock if it's not in stock for some like weird sizes it'll say it on there so you know color changing mugs are back in stock and then one final thing with criminal coffee prebble penny i just said it on crime weekly news we do have some major developments in that case and we're going to share them with you at some point. Unfortunately, we cannot share them now because it's an ongoing thing, but it shouldn't be too, too long. We're getting the updates. We're being entrusted with the information. So we're obviously not going to burn that bridge, but we'll just say we have some information, some really good

information. You guys will be happy with the results. Everyone's working really hard and we cannot wait to share it with you. I'm busting at the seams to share it right now, but we will wait and it'll be worth it. We'll probably do an episode on it, right? Because there's so many twists and turns with this case now. Now you could do an episode on it. Yeah, definitely. It's so unexpected. It's crazy. It's crazy. So without spoiling it, because a lot of the people, including the detective, I think on this case is going to see this. We don't want to give too much away. We're being trusted not to say anything, so we won't.

That was really the only house cleaning things I had. If you want to go check it out, you can check it out. You guys are always DMing us, emailing us, letting us know if there's anything else. But that was my stuff for the week. Well, should we take our first break before we dive in so we don't have to interrupt? That might actually be a good idea. We kind of covered a little bit of the case. It wasn't like we were just talking about our own stuff here.

Yeah. So that would be good. And I'm sure you guys will like that because essentially we have four breaks tonight. So this will get one of them out of the way before we get into the meat and potatoes of the episode. Good call, Stephanie Harlow. Thank you. Let's take a break. Now at Verizon, we're locking in low prices for three years guaranteed on MyPlan.

And you can get a single line for just $45 a month when you switch and bring your phone. That's our best price ever on Unlimited Welcome with auto pay plus taxes and fees guaranteed for three years. Because at Verizon, we got you. Visit your local dc verizon store today 20 monthly promo credits applied over 36 months with a new line on unlimited welcome in times of congestion unlimited 5g and 4g lte may be temporarily slower than other traffic domestic data roaming at 2g speeds price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate additional terms and conditions apply all right so we are back let's dive in we talked about jesse miss kelly jr's trial last week and so two two weeks after Jesse Ms. Kelly Jr. was found guilty of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison,

jury selection began for the trial of Damian Echols and Jason Baldwin, who would be tried jointly. The trial officially began on February 28th, 1994, on a cold and frosty morning that didn't stop dozens of news networks and hundreds of spectators from gathering inside and around the courthouse. The trial was heard by Judge David Burnett. This is the same judge who presided over Jesse, Miss Kelly Jr.'s trial, the same judge who had signed the warrants for all three of the teenagers' arrests, the same judge that literally, I feel like hated these three kids because this judge, I've never seen anybody die on a hill like he did. He was there for all of the trials

and then he'd be there for all of the appeals and he'd be there to basically like deny all of the appeals without even really giving them any thought. And then years later, after these kids got exonerated and everything, he was asked, do you feel like you did something wrong here? And maybe you could have done something differently.

And he's stubborn as ever. And he's like, absolutely not. I did everything right. I did everything. Yeah, it was ridiculous. But Judge David Burnett, he's the judge here and he's going to keep popping up. And honestly, along with him and like Bryn Ridge, I think that these people are pretty despicable.

So the night before the trial began, Jesse's attorney, Dan Stidham, he had informed the judge and the state that his client had once again decided not to testify as a prosecution witness. And obviously, this left the prosecution in a bad position. It left them with a very, very thin case against the remaining two defendants, like very thin as a non-existent. So we got District Attorney John Fogelman, who also is despicable to me. He gave his opening statement to the jury and, you know, he did the normal thing that lawyers do during opening statements. He talked about the three victims, Michael Moore, Christopher Byers, and Stevie Branch, all three eight-year-old second-grade students at Weaver Elementary, all three energetic little boys who were drawn to the woods at Robin Hood Hills because of the play potential that the hills and trails held for adventurous children. Fogelman went on to say that the three boys were last seen around 6 p.m.

and they didn't come home that night. And then there was a massive search, which ended with the horrific discovery of their bodies in the drainage ditch. Fogelman talked about the state of the bodies and the evidence that was found in the area, including two bicycles belonging to Michael and Stevie in the Ten Mile Bayou. Now, as the proof develops, I want to tell you in advance, there's going to be a lot of testimony from the Arkansas Crime Laboratory. And some of this evidence is going to be what we call, I guess you'd call it

negative evidence. It doesn't really show a connection to anybody. And there will be a reason for us putting that on, and we'll explain that to you later. But for instance, there will be proof like on the bicycles, there aren't any fingerprints. On some things that were in the kids' pockets, no fingerprints. Things like that. And you may wonder why we're putting on evidence of a negative, but we'll explain that to you later. Now, as the proof develops, the proof is going to show, ladies and gentlemen, through scientific evidence, the statements of these own defendants, Damien Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, and other evidence that they caused the deaths of Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Chris Byers. So John Fogelman says that the state is going to be presenting a lot of what he referred to as negative evidence, negative evidence, which is evidence that didn't really show a connection to anyone. But he reassures the jury that this will all be explained later.

You know, the reason why the prosecution is presenting evidence that doesn't actually connect the people that they're accusing of murder to the crime or the crime scene. They never really do that, by the way, just as a little like spoiler alert. They just produce all this evidence and they're like, this could be used for this. This may have been used for this. And it doesn't tie to any of these defendants. And they never talk about why they're they're even bringing it up or showing it to the jury. And pretty much the reason why they're doing that is because they don't have anything. They have nothing. And so they have to just kind of talk about what they found during the investigation,

even though they were never able to tie the evidence found during the investigation to Jesse, Jason or Damien. Next up for opening statements was Jason Baldwin's lawyer, Paul Ford. And he basically said, listen, Jason's a good kid. He's never really been in any trouble outside or inside of school. In fact, the officials at his high school were shocked that Jason had been accused of the crime because it wasn't the kind of person that they knew him to be. And Paul talked about how Jason and his three brothers were being raised by a single mother who worked every day from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. And while she was at work, Jason took care of his little brothers. He got them ready for bed at

night. He got them up and ready for school in the morning because his mother worked so late. She was very tired in the morning. Ford said that what happened to Stevie, Michael and Christopher was tragic. Nobody could deny that. But his client had nothing to do with it. And the only reason that Jason had been arrested was due to pressure on the West Memphis Police Department to make an arrest. And the police did make an arrest, even though they had no evidence to do so. As they searched that area, you'll see from their own testimony, they found nothing, not even a drop of blood. At that time, the questions were in their minds, questions upon questions. They had to find the

answers. It's the job of the police department to find the answers. They didn't have the box that came with this puzzle to look at. They didn't know what type of pieces they were trying to put together. So Ford said that in the beginning, the police were proceeding with the investigation as usual, based on the crime. They were looking for transients. They were going to homeless shelters. They were looking for someone who may have been passing through because, you know, West Memphis being a trucking community, there's tons of truckers and people passing through all the time. So the police actually obtained fuel records from truck stops in the area to see who may have been passing through on that day. Obviously, the police looked for child sex offenders in the area. And Jason's lawyer, Paul Ford, he also said something interesting. He said that the police had gone door to door looking for a veteran because some of what they had found

had led them to believe they should be looking for someone with military experience. And he never really kind of clarifies that, but I would assume maybe it had something to do with the knots that were tied in the shoelaces, things like that. But I kind of had never really heard the West Memphis police talk about looking for somebody who could potentially be in like that. But I kind of had never really heard the West Memphis police talk about looking for somebody who could potentially be in the military. And I think that's very interesting. And I also think it's very interesting that it looks like at first, the police department did conduct a good interview. I mean, a good investigation, like they did the right things. They were looking at all possible outlets. But when that they are doing something. And, you know, in more modern times, we saw it happen with the Idaho murders, right, where you had these four college students

brutally murdered and a college town where everyone's terrified now. And they're like, how does something like this happen? And you don't have anybody in custody. And there was a lot of pressure on the police department. I mean, luckily, I think we've come to a place where the police are kind of like able to tune that out now. And they know that they have to sort of just do what they need to do and go through everything systematically and methodically, step by step, so that it holds up during trial. But at this time, maybe in West Memphis, Arkansas, they were not so concerned about it holding up during trial as they were about, you're thinking about your own kids and you're thinking the individuals who did this are still out there. And so they're relying on the police department to be their heroes, to find the people who did this, get them off the streets, to not only get justice for those three little boys and their families, but also to ensure that this isn't going to happen again

to someone else. So they feel that public pressure to make an arrest because they're the last line of defense, right? If they don't know who it is, then who will? So yeah, I'm sure that plays into it where psychologically they know a lot of people are relying on them to give them answers, right? They're supposed to be the ones to tell you who did this. And I'm sure that comes into human nature. It's going to come into your mind. You have to try to keep that out and continue to be objective, but it definitely creeps in there. You want to, even me, even on the shows we've done where it's like a 30-year-old case and they want you to come in in seven days and solve it. Although it's not practical, you do feel this pressure to try to at least give them some

answers so you don't come back to them on day seven with just telling them things they already know. Yeah. And I mean, if you think about it, this was 1993, it's May, the beginning of May, right? You got a whole nice season ahead of you, a whole summer ahead of you. And during this time in this kind of small town, yeah, a lot of parents were just gonna send their kids out to play all summer.

You know, go outside, ride your bikes, play with your friends, get the hell out of here. You know, like don't be in the house making a mess and bothering play all summer. You know, go outside, ride your bikes, play with your friends, get the hell out of here. You know, like, don't be in the house making a mess and bothering me all day. But now these parents are like, we can't do that. Now when there's like child murderers on the loose. So they're thinking about this. They don't even feel safe to allow their children to go outside and play in the town where they live. And this is going to cause like an uproar. And this is going to cause like a uproar. And this is going to cause like a public outcry when you don't feel safe to let your kids go outside. And the pressure

is going to keep mounting. And this is what we saw happening here, which, like you said, is understandable. As a parent, I'd also be like, what the hell are you guys doing? Like, how does this happen? And you don't have any leads. But it does cause, at least then, I think it's a lot different now. Because once again, we do have higher standards for courts and trials and things like that. But I think at least then, it was kind of like, let's just get this off our desk. So people like, chill out. Now, what would have happened if they'd arrested Damien and Jason and Jesse? And then two weeks later, when these kids are behind bars, another kid gets

murdered. What were they going to say? It's a different person? What's going to happen? It's another child murder? It's just, it's unfortunate. Well, I think it goes back to episode one or episode two, where they were pretty dead set on who they thought it was, right? Damien Echols was the leader of this whole thing. And it was just a matter of, okay, we know who it is. Now we have to figure out how he did it. And that's the wrong way to do it. You don't want to reverse engineer a crime. You want to let the breadcrumbs take you to where you need to be. But it does happen. And these are some of the flaws in this case, which kind of led us to where we are now. And it's not a good thing. And it should be a lesson for everyone, not only as a public, but also just in the profession of law enforcement.

Even if they have good intentions, it doesn't justify bad police work. No, it does not. But we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to hear from Damien's lawyer, and he's going to sort of touch on this topic of bad police work. So we'll be right back. Okay, we're back. So next, Damien's lawyer, Scott Davidson, gave his opening statement, and he was like, listen, you're going to hear a lot from different witnesses in this case. And we could sum up what each one of these witnesses is

going to say. But instead, let's just make it easier and talk about these four underlying themes that you're going to see throughout the testimony. And so Davidson starts writing on a chalkboard behind him. And in the testimony that we're going to play for you, you can actually hear him at some points writing on the chalkboard. But he writes number one and he writes police ineptitude. And he's like, listen, you're going to see there's a lot of sloppy police work. And you will see that you'll see that there's things police decided not to do, things that they decided not to send to the crime lab, certain leads they decided not to follow. Right. And this is true. We're going to talk about it a little more in the final episode when we talk about other suspects, because that's when

this well, some of this police ineptitude sort of creeps in and you start looking at like, well, this person was a very viable suspect. Why didn't the police question them? Or why didn't the police follow up on their alibi? Or why didn't the police actually, you know, put them in a lineup, which is the way that they did with Damien Echols and Jason and Jesse? Why did they focus so much on Jason and Jesse and Damien when these people over here are even better suspects, to be completely honest? So you're going to see that a little bit when we talk about other suspects. And then he wrote, Scott Davidson wrote on the board behind him, number two, Damian Echols' tunnel vision. Damian Echols' tunnel vision.

I think that you will see from the testimony that when they couldn't find anybody, any trucker, when they couldn't find a transient, they couldn't find a VA vet, they began looking for somebody to pin this crime on. They began looking for someone in the community. Who can we put this thing on? And I think that you will see that they began having Damien Eccles tunnel vision where they start taking all the evidence that comes in and trying to, as Mr. Ford said,

fit it into their little puzzle, fit it into their little picture. Now, as we look at this, I think that you'll see that there are, again, people that they didn't talk to, and that's just as important as the ones that they talked to, we submit. You're also going to see that our client, Damian Echols,

well, I'll be honest with you, he's not the all-American boy. He's kind of weird. He's not the same as maybe you and I might be. That'll be evident. But I think you will also see that there's simply not evidence that he murdered these three kids. So the number three theme was that Damian Echols wasn't even there. Like he couldn't have been there. You know, Scott Davidson said he's got friends and family, like multiple people who were able to say where he was during the day and night of May 5th. His

mother, his father, his sister, Jason Baldwin himself, friends that they talked to on the phone, things like that. Basically, there was somebody who could always sort of account for Damien's whereabouts. And then the fourth theme was that the prosecutor had not proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt. And I agree with that 100 million percent. There is not one place in this trial where the district attorney, John Fogelman, gives evidence that's even close to circumstantial, honestly. Like there's some circumstantial evidence, but it's not even strong circumstantial evidence, right? You look at a case like Casey Anthony, and you can see in her case, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that's

very, very, very strong. But here, the circumstantial evidence was tenuous at best. So the prosecution actually had a 16-year-old kid named Michael Carson testify. And Michael Carson didn't testify in court. They just had his statement. But he'd been locked up in the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Facility the previous August with Jason Baldwin. And he and Jason got to know each other there. And he claims that Jason confessed to the murders. Carson said that Jason had given him explicit details. And Carson said that Jason had already claimed that he was going to beat up Jesse Miss Kelly Jr. for snitching. Now, the thing was, Michael Carson, there was a lot of things about him that just didn't add up. First of all, even though he was only 16, he'd already been in a lot of trouble. When the Jonesboro police arrested him in November of 1993 for burglary, he was already on probation for earlier crimes dealing with burglary and drugs. And he didn't tell the officials that he knew anything about the triple murder until January

of 1994. So right about when Jesse and Miss Kelly's trial started. It also turns out that the police said, well, he knew some things about the case that he shouldn't have known. Once again, this was absolutely untrue. Nothing he said had not been printed in the papers. And one of the prison counselors who worked with him would later come forward and claim like, yeah, we talked about these murders and he was like asking me questions and I was answering them. So he used the details that he'd gotten from like the papers in this counselor to claim that he knew something about these murders in order to, you know, get something for himself, like a reduction in his sentence, get some charges wiped out, et cetera, et cetera. And that's why I think I think it was in the

series that I said, I don't trust jailhouse informants for this specific reason. Michael Carson could never, you know, show other witnesses who had been around when jason had said this even though they were in prison with multiple other inmates uh he just had no proof of it ever and people once again who who want to believe that the west memphis three are guilty will constantly point to michael carson's you know statement saying that jason confessed to him but it is literally just hearsay and it's hearsay from somebody who had something to gain from lying. Jailhouse informants are tough because like you said, they could have an incentive behind it, trying to reduce sentence, things like that. Although I will say, you might

know this story, but I may not be here today if it wasn't for a jailhouse informant. Yeah. I told you that story. Yeah, they have their benefits. And that was just something where they just wanted to do the right thing. There was honestly nothing promised to them. But they weren't in for a serious crime. They were going to get out. But I had taken care of them in the past when they were out on the streets. And they remembered it and basically saved my life because there were, for those of you who don't know, someone was plotting to kill me in prison.

And it was a jailhouse informant who told the security, the guards who then told my police department. And that was the only reason why I got out of my house when I did, because they were going to, they were going to kill me when they got out. So shout out to the jailhouse informants when they do the right thing, when they do the right thing, when they do shout out to them. It's just, I mean, and you understand once again, this is the only evidence they have against Jason Baldwin. Because remember, the Hollingsworth family, Narlene and like her son and her nephew and stuff, they claimed they'd seen Damien and Domini walking like, you know, covered in mud and walking by the Blue Beacon car wash right after the murders would have taken place. But nobody placed Jason Baldwin there. So we don't even have him placed at the scene because the Hollingsworths thought that they

saw Domini and Damien. So you don't even have Jason placed at the scene. So Michael Carson's testimony was and obviously Jesse, Miss Kelly statement and Aaron statement and uh aaron hutchinson the little hutchinson boy their statements that they saw all of these like devil worshiping like murders happening those are the only like this is the only evidence they have against jason baldwin nothing else they can't even show because with damien they're gonna show certain instances of like oh you know he had a pentagram like scratched into his notebook and he said something about wanting to be in the dark and not wanting to be in the light. Like

even that shit is stupid. OK, but they didn't even have any of that on Jason and understand that this kid is going to get sentenced to life in prison with this weak ass evidence, which I don't even want to call evidence because it's hearsay and it's small town gossip and it's fear mongering. There was one thing I wanted to run by you and I had written it down. Again, it was sent to me and it was kind of like a timeline of the facts of the case. And I say facts with quotations because you may say, no, it's not a fact, but I wanted to run it by you because I'm sure you came across it. And we were talking about the jailhouse informant, that being one angle where you have someone where you have to always question their motives, right? What's the reason behind this?

There was something else. And this was May 6th. So this was the morning after the murders it would have been, right? Because the murders were on May 5th, right? Yes. Okay. So May 6th, the morning after, and it was that Jesse's friend, Buddy Lucas. Does that name sound familiar to you?

Yes. He stopped by Jesse's house and allegedly Buddy said that Jesse told him that he quote unquote hurt some boys in West Memphis the night before and he then broke out in sweat, cried and gave Buddy a used pair of sneakers. So you already know it. You didn't hit on that. What was your, what's your take on that? Because we're going to talk about that next episode because Buddyas is a suspect buddy lucas is a suspect okay okay so you're saying the angle there might be just like the just like the anthony hollingsworth who was one of the people who claimed that they saw like damien and dominey by like robin hood hills okay all right

you know good we're gonna have it in. That was one thing when I was going through all the stuff that was sent, I was like, ooh, that's interesting because that would have been before. But it's still hearsay and they don't have no

like muddy sneakers. Okay. Yeah. Like once again, everything they have is just, oh, I heard this. Oh, he told me this. But then they have no evidence

to back it up. This is literally the epitome of the Salem witch trials. This is exactly what happened in Salem. All of a sudden, all these little girls all start piping up and they all got their own story about how, you know, Goody Brown over here is sending a cat spirit into their room at night to attack them. And then the other girl's like, yeah, Goody Brown sent a wolf spirit into my room to attack me. And then they're like, let's hang them. OK, there's hang them. Okay. There's no

evidence. It's just random kids, stupid, bored, small town kids who are like literally out of their minds on drugs and alcohol half the time, just saying random shit with nothing to back it up. And this is what they go to trial with. It's embarrassing. Embarrassing. Would you agree that hypothetically, if we could prove that Jesse did in fact say this to Buddy Lucas the morning of before he's ever brought in by police, if we had a magic ball where we could go back and play that and he did say to them, yeah, we heard some boys the night before, even if there were no sneakers, take the sneakers out for a second. I think I think you would agree, right, that that would be pretty damning. Yeah, if that actually happened. We'll never be able to do that. So I'm just bringing it as a hypothetical. It's pointless to say, but it would be obviously compelling if you could prove that. Yeah, yeah, for sure. But it's easy to just say random shit that you can't prove, especially when the grownups,

you know, the adults in the room aren't even asking you to prove it because just you saying it is enough. And this is what starts this like mass hysteria, like ball rolling downhill because the kids say whatever they want. And then they're like, oh, shit, they believed me. They didn't even ask me for like proof or evidence. They just believe me. And then they go and tell their friends are like, yo, I told the police this. And they believed me, man. And then their friends are like, well, let me see if I can get in on this. Like, it's crazy what happened here. Crazy.

The only tangible thing, and you already addressed this, don't ask me what episode, it was four or five. We've done so many. The fact that I even remember you addressing it after everything we've covered is crazy, but it's the liquor bottle, right? The Hennessy bottle, I believe it was. It was not Hennessy. It was like Evan Williams. Evan Williams. Okay. Whatever it was, it was one of those things where, you know, he had said that day when it went down, I dumped a bottle in there. We talked about the issues with that as well, but that was like the one thing where the people who have, who believe that Jesse Miskelley was telling the truth. That's what, that is one thing they hang their hat on.

Like, you know, where he said the bottle would be, they did find the broken neck of that bottle. That's a really, really weak thing to hang your hat on. I hope you don't like that hat because it's going to be on the floor. Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. It's been a year, okay? A year, 12 months after Jesse allegedly threw it out the window over and over a pass of a bridge, which is like historically where people will usually toss their liquor bottles out the window, right? It's been a year. They found a broken Evan Williams bottle under the bridge. Holy shit. Oh my God. This is insane. Evan Williams is the top selling whiskey brand in that area. And you got a bunch of people, once again, small town ain't got shit to do, drinking all the time. And is it crazy to think that in the past 12 months,

somebody else may have driven over the bridge and thrown a bottle of whiskey out an empty bottle of Evan Williams out the window? Like, come on, man. Jesse himself could have had done it like the week before. And and he just said that it was there to give it some like relevancy. That's the one thing I will say, because I don't want to debate over a liquor bottle, but that's the one thing I will say because I don't want to debate over a liquor bottle But that's the one thing i'll say and I said it when we talked about it. There's a possibility that jesse dumped that bottle before after The incident just to give himself some credibility, but I personally believe not trying to convince anybody else

That unless when they went there there was like seven earl. You said earl williams I've never even heard of that liquor but evan evan williams if unless there was like seven Earl, you said Earl Williams. I've never even heard of that liquor, but unless there was like 17 Evan Williams bottles and then that exact location, if the suspect, again, air quote says, hey, on the day in question, I dumped a bottle, this brand at this specific location under this bridge, and they go there to that area and they happen to find one Evan Williams bottle right in that area where he said, I actually, I wouldn't discredit as much as you are. That's not what happened though. He said, I threw this whiskey bottle out the window and then the prosecutor, John Fogelman, not the police, John Fogelman, the person who's

prosecuting them and his little like sidekick. OK, they go and they find it. They're allowed to do that. Yeah. But is John Fogelman going to come back and say, oh, I found this broken Evan Williams bottle amongst 12 other broken Evan Williams bottles? No, no. You're not questioning that it could have been potentially compelling.

You're questioning the integrity of the person who obtained that evidence. I'm questioning the integrity of the person who said the story Jesse that dumbass okay and I'm also questioning the integrity of yes John Fogelman who took advantage of the fact that Jesse's a dumbass who actually went there to find the bottle and isn't gonna be like yeah I found the seven Williams bottle in a graveyard of other Evan Williams bottles like no he's not going to be like, yeah, I found this Evan Williams bottle in a graveyard of other Evan Williams bottles. Like, no, he's not going to say that he's trying to win a case. He's up. He's going to try to, like, be elected for public office in a couple of years after this. All right. He's trying to make his name hang his hat on this case. But let me tell

you what I know. One hundred million percent for sure. I'm not putting any teenager on death row or in prison for life because there happened to be a bottle underneath the bridge So if that's the evidence that they have the anti West Memphis three people if that's the evidence They're hanging their hat on once again. Hope you don't like that hat. It's gonna be on the ground along with like Your morals because this is horrible. This is horrible. You can't throw these kids in prison for comments this week. You can't throw these kids in prison for life because a whiskey bottle is under a bridge like that can't be your most compelling piece of evidence. If you've got a lot of other compelling evidence and this is your supporting evidence to like

prop up your compelling evidence fine, but it cannot be the most like strong piece of evidence you have. That's ludicrous. I mean, if that's the strongest piece of evidence, it's a problem. But I will say not that I'm in this camp, but I will say you could also make the argument that there's no evidence that they manipulated the evidence they found at the bridge. Right. That's speculation on your part, too. Right.

I didn't say that they manipulated it. Well, you're saying that if they found other bottles there, they would deliberately leave that. They would omit that fact. Well, that would be manipulating the evidence, wouldn't it be? I guess not unless you were asked if there was other bottles there. Oh, and I think that as a lawyer, he would know that it's not only about proving your case, but also disproving any defense against it, which the defense would be, okay, you found a bottle there, but how many other bottles did you find that also were Evan Williams bottles? Yeah, that was Dan. Dan Stidman was the defense. He's a public defender. He's got Jesse Miss Kelly.

OK, Jesse Miss Kelly Jr. is like three clients in one. All right. You think Dan Stidman, who's got his hands full with Jesse Miss Kelly, is like, oh, by the way, were there any other bottles? No. And he basically told Fogelman because Fogelman came back with a bottle. Remember, he was to Dan Stidman. He was like, is this strong enough evidence? And Dan Steadman was like, no, you said that. No, no, it's not. So I don't even think there had to be a conversation about it. It's a bottle of whiskey under a bridge in a place where people drink a lot of whiskey. And I still think it's potentially possible that if if Jesse's lying then it could have the reason Jesse knew that that bottle would be there is because he threw the bottle. But it could have been any time during that period that he had thrown it.

So he yeah, he knew it was going to be there. But the argument could easily be made that yeah, you knew it was going to be there because you threw it there two weeks before you told them that there would be a bottle there. So that's a that's a strong argument. If Jesse had gotten some of the crime scene details right, once again, more compelling. If Jesse had said, oh, I left a bottle of Evan Williams in Robin Hood Hills, that would be more compelling. He can get this right, but he can't get like any of the crime scene details right. That's my biggest hold up with the case. For anybody's like okay derek well where are you where do you lie lay on this one it's honestly that's the biggest problem i have jesse would with as traumatic as that would be witnessing that you would have some details that would

hopefully be able to be corroborated through the actual evidence which would mostly be contained within the boys or on the boys so the fact that he was so off on those things is tough. And I also will say not being able to tell time is one thing, but not being able to give a general idea of the time of day and just being completely off on that even is troubling. Do you wear a watch? Do you know what a watch is? He said it was the morning and we know with 100% certainty that they weren't killed in the morning

because they were seen much later in the day. So when he says, yeah, no, it was the morning and they ask him again and he's pretty sure about it. If he had said, oh, it happened, you know, maybe around two or three

and it happened at six, maybe the sun is in a similar position where you could screw that up. But morning, as opposed to 6 p.m. at night or whenever that window when this could have happened six to seven. That's a big difference. So those are my biggest issues with it. Although he did have some things where in a vacuum the bottle evidence. Right. I could see how someone would go. Wow, that's pretty, that's interesting. It's interesting that he was able to tell you that. And he said he did it on the day in question. But there are issues with that as well, as you pointed out. And even issues that I pointed out as far as how do we know it was that day? There's nothing on that bottle or in that area that proves to us that he threw the bottle out on the day when the boys were killed or the night before the boys were killed.

And it's been a year, 12 months. Right. That's like a long time. Yeah. Can happen. A lot can happen in that time frame. All right. We're going to take a quick break.

We'll be right back. The prosecution also called up Detective Michael Allen, who testified about the knife found in the pond behind Jason's trailer. But when cross-examined by Jason's lawyer, who asked if Alan was telling the jury that the knife was the murder weapon, Alan had to admit that he could not say that. Basically, it was like, oh, maybe a knife like this was used, but they didn't have any evidence that this knife found in this pond behind Jason's trailer was a murder weapon. The prosecution brought up another child. You know, basically, once again,

this this case is made up of random townie children just saying random townie stuff. And this was 12 year old Christy Van Vickle. She claimed she'd been at the girls softball field one day after the murders, and she'd heard Damian Echols say that he had killed the three boys. Christy said that she and her friend had been walking by and it was like Damien and Jason Baldwin and a couple other like teens having a conversation. And basically, Damien was like, oh, I killed these kids. And so on cross-examination, Christy was asked, like, when did this happen? Where were you? How close were you to Damien when you overheard the statement? And she said, well, I wasn't that close. So Damien's attorney asked her,

well, how did you hear that? Did Damien, like, scream it? Did he yell it out? And she responded, I don't know. She was also asked why she hadn't told anyone that night or for weeks after, why she'd only come forward with this information after Damien had been arrested. You know, it's one thing to not want to tell the police, but to not even mention it to her parents. Like, that's weird. And she basically said, I don't know. I don't know why I didn't come forward at that point. Next, one of Christy's friends testified, Jodi Medford, and Jodi said she'd also heard the confession. And she heard Damien say, quote, I killed the three little boys.

And before I turn myself in, I'm going to kill two more. And I already have one of them picked out. End quote. This is what these little girls are saying. OK, there I believe the first girl, Christy, was 12 and Jody was 15. So at the time of the murders, Christy was 11. Jody was 14. These little girls claimed to have heard Damien say this basically right after the murders,

yet they did not tell anybody until after he was arrested. And I do also want to say, even if Damien said this, it doesn't mean he did it, right? He's a stupid kid and maybe he said a stupid thing. Now, I absolutely 1 million percent don't believe that he said this. And I don't see why he would be sitting at a softball game talking to a group of kids yelling this confession out. And nobody else heard it except these two little girls. But that's the story they told. And I just I don't I don't believe it. I once again, this is Salem. These kids are just like jumping on the bandwagon. They're getting attention from their parents probably for the first time in a long time. And somebody's listening to them. And that can be very powerful for a child when somebody listens to you. And you finally have like center stage and people are taking you seriously and adults like respect what you have to say. It's very powerful. And it can get a little bit out of control sometimes. I'll say this because it can't be more true than in this case. And I know you stand, Stephanie, as far as West Memphis three and their innocence or guilt, you definitely think

they're innocent as do a lot of people. But this is a great point to make here. Let's say for a second that they're guilty. This is why proper police procedure is so important. Because the reality is the investigation was conducted so poorly and information and photos were disseminated before these boys were arrested that it influenced the community exponentially. And so everything that comes in, including these statements right here, it causes you to pause and question the validity of what they're saying as far as what they heard, what they might've witnessed, et cetera, because the community has been influenced by how the police conducted their investigation. So everything that comes in has this extreme level of scrutiny over it. So for this particular case, it's probably warranted,

right? Like they didn't do it. And this community was dead set on them being the ones who did it because, hey, the police arrested them. It had to be them, right? So let me help. Let me help make sure these guys go away forever. But there can be situations where the people are actually guilty. And because of the police conduct everything that's brought in is also thrown out or or not seriously considered because of the things that happened way before this this quote-unquote confession was made that's the only thing i wanted to say about it is as far as like there's a bigger problem taken seriously like that's the bigger problem oh yeah they were found guilty of course that's what i'm saying but as far as like there's a bigger problem here. Yeah, but they were taken seriously. Like that's the bigger problem. Oh yeah, they were found guilty, of course. That's what I'm saying.

But as far as how you're laying it out, what your opinions are, I believe, I could be wrong, most people who are watching or listening to this probably agree with you. So to think that these things are said where you have two different girls saying, hey, we both heard this guy say- Two different girls who were friends exactly but if you in in a good case if you had two friends who overheard the same thing i know as an investigator i i would say to myself okay you had two people who clearly they both didn't mishear what he said i would i would look at that and go okay i'm definitely gonna throw them on the stand but but the problem 11 year old and a 14 year old man come on yes stephanie i

would if two teenagers hurt if two teenagers not in this case came to me and said hey this guy over here said at a park that he killed these three boys and it just so happens that that they didn't know it because i did a good investigation right and they didn't know that i was looking at that guy oh of course yeah definitely i don't care that they're 11 and 14. I would say, oh my God, they just said that my suspect who they're not aware of, that's a suspect of mine. Right. They happen to hear him say something that confirms what we're saying behind closed doors. A hundred percent. 11 and 14. Throw them up. Mommy, daddy, mommy, daddy signed the statement for they're going to be going on the

stand for sure yeah dude it's a lock but don't you think it's less relevant after the arrest of this person yes and no every case is specific it has to be applied to this case yes absolutely because the whole community is saying kill them as they're getting carried as they're walking out that's a problem and there's there's photos are being put out there. So it's case by case. I don't necessarily have an issue with someone coming forward after the arrest. We might not agree with it. Like, why wouldn't you tell someone?

Well, I was afraid or whatever. I don't know what your reasoning is. But if I can check out your story and it's corroborated by someone else who hears the same thing when I separate you two. And if I believe you and I say, hey, did you two discuss this? Did you talk about it? No, no, we didn't. I didn't even know that she heard as well. There's ways to check it out, right? And if you believe them and they identify someone and it's a person who you as an agency are already looking at and there's no way that these girls could know that, oh yeah, that's big. But in this situation, we know that everyone in

that community knew law enforcement felt like Damian Echols was involved. So that hurts. That hurts the credibility of any witness testimony that comes forward and everything has to be looked under a microscope because of the surrounding factors in this case. The last prosecution witness I'm going to talk about is someone named Dale Griffiths. So Dale Griffiths was allegedly a demonology and an occult expert. And Griffiths was brought in there to talk about the trademarks of occultism and how he had seen these trademarks in the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore. At my request, have you reviewed autopsy reports for

Stevie Branch, Chris Byers, and Michael Moore? Yes. And have you reviewed autopsy photographs? Yes, I have. Have you also reviewed some crime scene photographs. Yes, I have. And there was absence of evidence of blood at the scene. Based on those factors and the information that you reviewed, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the murder of Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and Chris Byers is occult- inspired or are the occults involved? They're using those items, yes. All right, and what is that opinion? That the trappings, that they were using the trappings of occultism during this event. And what do you mean the trappings of occultism? Well, you've got dates, time of the moon phase.

You have the removal of blood. I want to start with, on the date, what relation does the date have? Occultists, when we're discussing this scene, in general, like any other religious body, have certain holidays that they worship. Walpersnock is on April 30th. Beltane is on May 1st. Okay, now, April the 30th is what month? Walpersnock. It's based at the changing of the seasons.

Okay. Beltane is May 1st. It's a fire festival festival it's a what? fire festival and in what group is that a holiday? generally in

occultism it's used by both pagan and satanic beliefs. All right. Now, while we're talking about it, can you define what we mean when we say the occult? Sure. Occult is like an esoteric secret science religion. And there are different types to it. There's paganism, which is white witchcraft.

And there's Satanism, that's black witchcraft. Some shamanism has been put in there, which is Indian folklore occultism. And so basically it goes on and on like that. And if you never thought you would see a murder trial where an expert witness was talking about moon phases and pagan festivals, you have now. I do want to play a quick clip of Damien's lawyer, Scott Davidson, tearing apart Dale Griffiths as far as like his education and his experience went.

And Dale obviously got real defensive. Is this your full-time job? Is this all you do for a living? Do consulting work? With police departments? Not with just police departments, sir. I testified earlier with mental health educators. And besides doing a consulting, I do give lectures, sir. But it's all in this area isn't it you derive all your living

from going around spreading satanic panic don't you absolutely not sir now where have you how many criminal trials have you testified in criminal trials how many criminal trials have you testified in

couple hundred you've testified? A couple hundred. You've testified in a couple hundred criminal trials. How many of those couple hundred criminal trials have you testified in as an expert in satanic activities? One. One. And where was that? Michigan. And what was the name of the person who was on trial?

I told you earlier, I don't remember his name. You don't remember. Michigan. And what was the name of the person who was on trial? I told you earlier, I don't remember his name. You don't remember, do you? His first name is Jeff, and he's in Ionia State Prison. And you think because you've testified in one trial, you're an expert? I've testified in hundreds of trials, sir. But not related to cult activities. You did all that when you were a police officer, didn't you? When you were on the beat making arrests. But as an expert in this field, you've only done it one time. Is that right?

One time. Is that your answer? No, I testified three times as an expert. In a criminal trial? That wasn't a question. Yes, it was. In a criminal trial. And you testified how many times

as an expert on this stuff? Three times. And how many of those were criminal? Once. And you think that qualifies you as an expert? That's up to the court. Do you think you're an expert? I know what I'm talking about. Do you think you're an expert? I never hold, I don't, I don't hold myself out as I know a lot about the topic, yes sir. That's not my question. Do you think you're an expert? I'm not saying that Dale Griffiths is a stupid person. Obviously he had extensive education in a lot of different areas. He'd been a police officer, but I am saying that he probably was not qualified to testify at a murder trial as an expert witness on the occult.

It was 1974, 1975. And what was that degree in? Associate degree in police science. An associate degree? Yes, sir. Okay. And did you have to go to classes? Oh, yes. And take tests?

Yes, sir. And get a report card? Or grades? Yes. And get a report card? Or grades? Yes. And have a transcript? Yes, sir. Now, did you later go to a four-year college? Yes, sir.

And when did you go to a four-year college? I actually was going to both of them at the same time. So you were a full-time police officer and enrolled as a full-time college student and enrolled as a full-time college student in two different colleges? Yes, sir. Okay. And when did you, you got it, did you get it, you got two degrees, one in a technical college and one a four-year degree, is that correct? Yes, sir. And that was a BA? Magna Cum Laude, yes, sir. Okay, and what year was that? 76. Okay. Now, when you went and got that B.A. degree, did you have to go to classes?

Yes, sir. And have professors? Yes, sir. And take tests? Yes, sir. And get grades? Yes, sir. And have a transcript?

Yes, sir. Okay. Now, when you went out to this mail-order college, Columbia Pacific University, what classes did you take? No classes. What, did you take? No classes. What, did you take tests? Yes. Okay, what tests did you take? Predominantly written.

Okay. Objective questions. Okay. And while you were enrolled at this college in California, where did you live? In Tiffin. Tiffin, Ohio. Yes, sir. Okay.

And you took no classes? And no professors? Oh, yes. I didn't say that. You didn't ask that question. Okay. But no classes? No classes.

No classes. Okay. And when did you start in school there? Around 1980, sir. 1980, and you got a master's degree? That's what you told us, you got a master's degree? Yes, sir. And how long did it take you, without taking classes, to get that master's degree? Two years.

Okay. It was a combined master doctoral program the total program lasted three years three years yes so in three years you got a master's and a PhD yes and didn't go to class I was at the campus a couple times but I did not attend classes they don't have classes at this campus, do they? No, sir. I think you told Mr. Fogelman that other schools don't offer classes like this. Are you telling us Harvard and Stanford,

Ohio State, Michigan State, they don't offer classes that deal with the psychology of non-traditional groups? Is that what you're telling this jury that those you can't go to those schools and study this kind of stuff consular this was 19 at that period of time 1980 the answer to that is no because i went to him in 1980 i went and asked for him yesterday in 1980 you couldn't go to Stanford or Michigan State and take a class on the psychology of non-traditional groups. Is that what you're telling us?

Not in work and not continuing also. Not if you were going to continue to be a full-time cop. Police officer. Right. The only way you could... You're not saying that these courses weren't offered, they're just saying you couldn't offer them without, you had to go to class to get a degree there, wouldn't you?

I went to Bowling Green, Toledo University, Marion Campus, Ohio State, the campus of Bowling Green up by the islands, and went to Ohio State and Ohio University. I could not even get a weekend program. Could you get a full-time program? Not in the area that I wanted to, no, sir. So you're telling us you could not go to school and go to class and get a degree in this type of subject. You had to go to this kind of college.

Not at this time. You can't at Toledo U now. So basically, Griffiths got his master's and doctoral degree in this subject that he was testifying on as an expert from a mail order college in three years, which is kind of crazy. You know, like that's that's not enough to say you're an expert on this subject. We've seen experts like Henry Lee and Werner Spitz and people like that who've been doing this stuff for 20, 30, 40, 50 plus years. They've been involved in dozens or hundreds of cases. And this dude got his occult degree or whatever through the mail from some mail order college. So basically, it'd be like an online college today, but this was 1993, so they didn't have that. They just had mail through a mail order college, which he never really attended any classes, as you heard him talk about. He basically just kind of phoned it in. And that's not enough to sit on the stand as an expert witness. But undoubtedly, I'm sure he did lots of research on this subject because it seems

that it had been an area of personal interest for him. But I'm not sure what his place on the witness stand was besides to put more fear in the heart of the 12 jurors who were there to decide the fate of two teenage boys. Now, the defense would also bring in their own expert, Robert Hicks, and he was a police officer with an expertise on satanic crime, and he testified that he knew of no actual connection between the occult and sexual or genital mutilation. He also stated that there was no empirical evidence that listening to Metallica music leads people to commit crimes, and he called the phrase that Dow Griffiths had used, which was the trappings of the occult, as completely meaningless when considering any kind of violent crime. So

basically, Robert Hicks was like, there are certain things that you can look at to decide if somebody is going to become a violent criminal or be capable of killing somebody. But what kind of music they listen to is not one of them. And the fact that they needed an expert witness to come up and testify to that and say that to a courtroom and a judge and a jury is concerning. Damien Eccles did take the stand in his own defense, and he talks about his interest in Wicca. He was asked to read some lines from his journal, and he did. Afterwards, he would tell the jury where the lines came from, whether it was Shakespeare or Metallica. Damien was also asked about Alistair Crowley, a well-known English occultist who's been referred to as a Satanist, even though Crowley himself, when he was alive, would not have approved

of that label because he didn't believe in Satan, because he didn't believe in the Christian view of God. So he wouldn't believe in, you know, the devil as Christians know him. Aleister Crowley was a practitioner of magic, magic with a K, and he called himself the Beast 666. He wasn't very well known in life, but after his death, a cult of sorts was formed in his name. And it's been alleged that Aleister Crowley took part in human sacrifice and that he murdered people. But there's no actual evidence of that, as far as I can find. And I've looked extensively. There's no actual evidence. So when you strip away all the sensationalism, it appears that Aleister Crowley was just kind of a weird guy who had some strange

and extreme for the time beliefs. And Damien's actually asked about Aleister Crowley, because I guess like when he was in prison, or waiting in jail, he had like made a drawing and he had used like code and stuff. And in the code was his name and Jason Baldwin's name, and then Aleister Crowley's name. And they were like, Oh, what do you know about Aleister Crowley? And he's like, I know some stuff about Aleister Crowley. Like, you know, he's cool. And they were like, he wrote some books. And Damien was like, yeah, if I ever came across his books, I would probably read them. But I never have. And I have never read any of his books. I just like know of him. They threw everything at Damien. And honestly, I know that I think that these these people are innocent. But even outside

of that, I have to say that Damien handled himself very well on the stand. He was calm. He didn't get mouthy. He didn't get mouthy. He didn't act arrogant. He answered the questions put to him very clearly, concisely, and honestly. Like, for instance, the police had found a skull in his room, an animal skull. And I guess it was a dog skull. And they were like, where'd you get this from? And Damien was like, well, my stepfather, Jack Eccles, found this skull. And he thought it was kind of cool.

And before he gave it to me, he bleached it out and made sure that there wasn't any germs or anything on it. It was a decoration for my room. You know, it's just like a skull that we found. And he was asked if the skull had any satanic meaning to it or did it have cult or occult meaning. And Damien was like, no, it doesn't have any meaning. It was just decoration for my room. And they were like, well, did you kill this animal? And he was like, no, we didn't kill this animal. We found the skull as it was. It was just there. We found the skull and then we bleached it. And then I put it in my room as a decoration. They also asked him about a booklet that was

kind of written in his own handwriting where he had written different passages from different books down. And some of these passages were like spells. And Damien was asked, had he ever tried to cast these spells? You know, they asked, had he ever used this material to conjure up anything dark or evil? And he was like, no. And then they asked him about why he had drawn a pentagram on one of his notebooks. And he was like i don't know i don't really have a reason it looked cool they asked him about a book called

never on a broomstick which he had purchased from the crinden county library book sale and the state showed him that they had you know underlined certain passages where the book referenced the devil and damien was like this book's about lots of stuff it's about like the history of witches going back to the 1600s and And it talks about, you know, different things. You know, I just thought it was a cool book and I wanted to read it. They asked him about a tattoo he had on his chest. And he said, it's an Egyptian symbol that stands for eternal life. And they were like, why'd you get it? And he was like, because I thought it looked cool. They asked him about a pentagram tattoo that he had on his chest. Once again, they were like, why'd you get it? And he was like, because I thought it looked cool. They asked him about a pentagram tattoo that he had on his chest. Once again, they were like, why did you get it? And he was like, because I thought it looked

cool. You know, basically, he's just a regular teenage guy up there, asked why he does these weird things. And he's like, I don't really have a reason. Like, I'm a kid and I'm impulsive and I thought it looked cool. So the trial went pretty much like this. The only thing that stands out is that, you know, something I mentioned at the top of the episode, Jason Baldwin was offered a deal if he would agree to testify against Damien. The state offered Jason 40 years in prison with the possibility of parole after 15, which is a really good deal if you're 16 years old and you're facing life in prison for the murders of three little boys. But Jason did not take that deal. He could have gotten out in 15 years. He didn't take that deal. He refused to testify against Damien. He refused to say that Damien had done the murders

or that he himself had had anything to do with the murders. At the end of the day, the state truly had no evidence, which I believe is illustrated in both sides during their statements, their closing statements. They really, the state had nothing. In his closing statement, the DA, John Fogelman, was like, listen, we got these two girls at the softball game. They heard Damien confess. You've got eyewitnesses who saw Damien near the scene of the crime with Domini, and he was all muddy. You've got Damien's ex-girlfriend, Deanna, who claims that Damien carried around a knife. We got a couple of fibers that sort of tie Damian and Jason to these three victims. We just aren't

going to talk about how those fibers would also connect almost anyone in West Memphis to the crime scene. And I mean, honestly, his closing statement was pretty weak until he got to the part about motive. And that's when like all the fire and brimstone and passion spilled over because John Fogelman said the motive for the murder of those three boys was satanic sacrifice, plain and simple. Fogelman said, listen, you may not believe this stuff, but they do. And religion can be a powerful driving force and it gives those who already want to commit a murder a viable reason to do so. And I honestly don't disagree with that statement. I think it's a very compelling statement to make. It was a good argument because religion can be a very powerful force. Right. We've seen this. We've seen this in cults like Heaven's Gate, you know, when they literally took their own lives. Also, they could like jump on the hellbob comet. We've seen it with Jonestown, Jim Jones. We've seen people do things in the name of religion that a logical person may not do if they were thinking straight.

Can I interject real quick? Yeah. The Waco documentary on Netflix, speaking of cults, just finished it today. Strongly recommend you guys go watch it. It's excellent. Phenomenal. And if you finish that one, this isn't cult related, but then go watch the Boston Marathon documentary as well three parts but that Waco as far as the cult I news obviously you know Waco who doesn't know

that case to some degree but the specifics with the recordings and how these they have people from that cult today talking about it and the way they're they're interviewing them the way they're talking about and they're justifying They're justifying having sex with kids. Well, to this day Saying hey, listen this we didn't see it as that. But anyways, I don't want to get off the path But yes to your point. There's a lot Waco is a great example to write David crush, right? David caress. Yeah, the crash I did a multi-part series on on Waco on my, and we kind of let it bleed over into Ruby Ridge, a similar, because what they were doing at Waco was bad, right? But what the government did, as far as government overreach, also bad. And you saw that again illustrated at Ruby Ridge, when you have, you know, death that doesn't need to happen. And there was multiple times, I'm sure you saw this in the documentary, multiple times they could have arrested David Koresh off of the compound when he was jogging every freaking morning. And yet they didn't want to do that. They wanted to make like a big, a big thing of it.

And because of that, you had tons of innocent people, including children, die horrible, horrible deaths. Yeah. Crazy. But I mean, there's a lot of specifics. You got to go watch it. But the fact that they went down they burned alive yeah for what they believed in they would rather go that way than than be arrested it was crazy i was crazy to hear and hear the radio transmissions between some of the people in the house nuts definitely they actually did a great scripted waco series that was excellent you should watch that it's very good interesting you just made me think of it when you said it. Well, religion will make people do some extreme things, right? Yeah. Oh, yeah, that's for sure. Yeah, we can acknowledge that. So that's why I think that

was really an effective closing statement for John Fogelman to make, because what you have is a jury of 12 people who live in West Memphis, Arkansas, who have already been exposed to all of this satanic panic stuff for the last however long that this has been going on. They've already got it in their heads. And on top of that, these are extremely religious people who understand how vehement their own faith is. And so they're thinking, well, I have faith for a good God and I would do anything for my good God. And these kids have faith for a bad, like satanic sort of like God, and they would probably do anything for their God. So this is what these people are most likely

thinking as John Fogelman is saying this. Fogelman also encouraged the jurors to take a good look at Damien Echols. And when they did that, he said, listen, it's clear. Look in his eyes. Anyone can see. There's no soul in there. Fogelman also read out one of Damien's poems, a poem that Damien had written, and it goes like this, quote, I want to be in the middle, in neither the black nor the white, in neither the wrong nor the right, to stand right on the line, to be able to go to either side with a moment's notice. I've always been in the black, in the wrong. I tried to get into the white, but I almost destroyed it because the black tried to follow me. This time I won't let it. I will be in the middle, end quote. To me, there's actually like a pretty good message here, like a positive message. Like I'm not going to be extreme either way. I'm just going to be like a normal person who has some good in them and some bad in them. And I'm not going to let either side sort of like claim me. John Fogelman did not see it that way. He read the poem and then he waved it at the jury. And he said, quote, that right there tells you Damien Echols. He don't want to be in the white. He doesn't want to be

good. He wants to be both where he can go to the good side or the bad side, however it suits his purpose. If he wants to do bad, let's go to the satanic side. If he wants to be good, then go to the wicked side. That poem right there tells you about Damien Eccles, end quote. And this is just ridiculous because this kid's 18 years old, man. It's so hard to even see this happening, that you would read that poem and then literally just be like, see, this proves he's a terrible person. Yeah, I mean, his age doesn't really bother me as much. I think it is a reach to say automatically based on the poem like that, that that means he's, you know, the devil. But it is something where, yeah, they're trying to put together a series of circumstantial evidence to try to make a strong case because clearly all they have is, and this is, I'm putting, this is a stretch, but circumstantial evidence. They don't have anything that's direct and it's going to, without a doubt, convince him. So he has to piecemeal these things together to try to paint a picture of who the jury is looking at in that same room with them listen don't look at him as this 18 year old boy listen to his words he's a devil worshiper and he's someone who gets off on this and that's

who you got to see him so don't listen to what he's saying today look at what he said in the past that's who he really is he's trying to convince the jury of that but i don't think what he said in the past is that bad honestly i think that's i think yeah i mean who am i to disagree with you i think that based on that community and how they viewed satanic rituals and things they might feel differently than you that's what i think he was pulling on he wasn't trying to convince you or i right it's black and white i think for those like very serious religious people especially at that time they're like oh wait you don't want to be completely good that's it what's wrong with you yeah exactly so he knows so he knows his audience.

And clearly, right or wrong or indifferent, I mean, he got them, right? Yeah. He got them. That's true. He got them. So he knew what to say and how to say it. And he knew his audience. And so he played to that.

Well, he sure did. All right. Let's take our last break. And we'll be right back. All right. be right back. sacrifice murder theory. There was no evidence of that either. Price said, quote, we had Dr. Peretti's testimony. He said there were three possibilities. One, that the boys were killed in the water. That could explain why there was no blood on the ground. But he also testifies that the injuries, specifically the injury to the penis, was very, very difficult even for him to do. He testified that it would take him 10 to 12 minutes to do it if you had somebody who was very familiar

with surgical instruments and if he was in his lab doing that. Also, if you look at, then perhaps it took place on the ground, but there's no blood on the ground. The third possibility is that these murders took place somewhere else, and that's not an imaginary doubt. That's a real doubt. That's a reasonable possibility of what took place, end quote. The defense brought up plenty of reasonable doubt. Other suspects that hadn't been pursued or questioned, such as the Mr. Bojangles man, which we will all bloody the night that these kids were like taken and murdered. He was an African-American man. So they were like, why you found this hair? But yet you didn't pursue this Mr. Bojangles theory.

So they brought up some reasonable doubt. We're going to get more into that. Just to remind people, this was the individual who ended up in the truck stop or the restaurant, something like that. He was at the Bojangles restaurant. Yeah, the Bojangles restaurant yeah the bojangles restaurant and he showed up all bloody and he had his his wrist in like a cast that you would get from a drug store and he was out of it and he went in the women's bathroom and he got blood all over so i'm just an idiot then because i thought maybe people would know what bojangles is and basically everyone does basically okay it's a restaurant right do

you know it yeah i knew it but i didn't like we don't have them out here so i didn't know if people would be like Bojangles. What is that? Is that a person? Is that like a spot? It's a spot. It is a spot. And despite the state having no physical evidence and the defense pointing this out very clearly, Damian and Jason were both found guilty. to life in prison and Damien was sentenced to death by lethal injection and execution

scheduled for May 5th, 1994, a year to the day after the deaths of Stevie, Christopher and Michael, which also lets you know that this is like symbolic, you know, they're like, we're going to kill you and we're going to do it on that same day. Like it's just a kind of kill the beast, you know, sort of energy like a pitchfork and torches kind of energy. And I just, I can't believe that Damien Echols was scheduled to die by lethal injection based on this evidence that they had, which was nothing. Yeah. You're not going to get me to disagree with you here.

We can disagree on a lot of the case itself and things, how we feel, how we perceive them. But I've always felt this way. I've told you guys this. It's one of those situations where even if you feel that they're guilty, even if you're in that camp, I would like to think that most people out there, even if you think they're guilty, would be reasonable enough to say, yeah, this case is weak and there is a potential that they didn't do it. And we probably shouldn't sentence them to death because there's no reversing that once it's done and this is you know we talked about death penalty and in certain situations yes it's warranted but it has to be overwhelming the

crime has to be heinous the evidence against them has to be definitive overwhelming there's no doubt yeah 100 i mean i would confession's good. I would even say like video evidence. Unless you're Jesse Miskelly. You know what I mean? That's what I'm saying. Like I would actually need to see like video evidence of the, because a lot of these crimes get caught on tape, especially now where you see the individual in question bringing our victim behind somewhere and doing what they're being implicated in.

And then, yeah, that's no doubt they did it, right? And there's no way to misconstrue that. I have no issue with it then. But in this case is at the complete other end of the spectrum where if you're somehow able to get to a point where you find them guilty, okay, fine, I respect your opinion, but there's no way a judge should turn around and sentence them to death based on the evidence that was presented. Yeah, absolutely. I agree. I mean, I'm kind of pro-death penalty for certain cases. This would definitely not be one of them. Oh my God. It makes me super uncomfortable. The crime itself would be, yeah, absolutely. I think, yeah, you would too. We'd be like,

oh, a hundred percent. But based on what you have to convince these boys, yeah, not enough. Now, if you had something more that put us all in the have to convince these boys, yeah, not enough. Now, if you had something more that put us all in the same room where we said, yeah, everyone agrees, these guys did it. You can clearly see them in the footage doing it. They all three confessed. They all had guilt. Now, all of it, right? The whole gamut. It's a no doubter. Put them to sleep. I'm fine with it. I have no problem with it. But what followed after this was a decade long fight, right? I mean, decades long fight. If you think about it, the lawyers for all three teenagers filed appeals to the Arkansas

Supreme Court. And on February 19th, 1996, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion upholding Jesse Miss Kelly Jr.'s conviction. And 10 months later, they also upheld the convictions of Damian Echols and Jason Baldwin, as well as the sentences. The Supreme Court ruled that although the evidence against the boys was circumstantial, they felt it was sufficient to support the verdicts. And part of their response read, quote, Echols admitted that he had delved deeply into the occult and was familiar with its practices. Various items were found in his room, including a funeral register, upon which he had

drawn a pentagram and upside-down crosses and had copied spells. A journal was introduced, and it contained morbid images and references to dead children. Eccles testified that he wore a long black trench coat, even when it was warm out. One witness had seen Eccles, Baldwin, and Miss Kelly together six months before the murders, wearing long black coats and carrying long staffs. Dr. Peretti testified that some of the head wounds to the boys were consistent with the size of two sticks that were recovered by the police. Dr. Dale Griffiths, an expert in occult killings, testified that the killings had the trappings of occultism. He testified that the date of the killings near a pagan holiday was significant, as well as the fact that there was a full moon. He stated that young children are often sought for sacrifice because the younger,

the more innocent, the better the life force. He testified that there were three victims, and the number three had significance in occultism. Also, the victims were all eight years old and eight is a witch's number. He testified that sacrifices are often done near water for a baptism type rite or just to wash the blood away. The fact that the victims were tied ankle to wrist was significant because this was done to display the genitalia and the removal of Byers testicles was significant because testicles are removed for the semen.ia, and the removal of Byers' testicles was significant because testicles are removed for the semen. He stated that the absence of blood at the scene could be significant because cult members store blood for future services in which they would

drink the blood or bathe in it. He testified that the overkill or multiple cuts could reflect occult overtones. Dr. Griffiths testified that there was significance in injuries to the left side of the victims, as distinguished from the right. People who practice occultism will use the midline theory, drawing straight down through the body. The right side is related to those things synonymous with Christianity, while the left side is that of the practitioners of satanic occult. End quote.

This is the Supreme Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court. They're saying this shit. It's embarrassing for Arkansas, honestly. Did you hear that Damien wore a long coat even when it was nice outside? How could I not hear it with your inflection and tone? Because I'm so serious. How could I not? It's pretty ludicrous. Am I right? Am I right? I mean, this is what they're saying. They're like, listen, we realize you guys didn't have any evidence against them. However, Dr. Griffiths, who's an expert in this stuff, he said that like eight is a witch's number. And the kids were eight.

And he said that, you know, that it was a full moon and it was near a pagan holiday. So I think that this this evidence is very compelling, even though it's only circumstantial. We're going to say that these kids still stay in prison for the rest of their life. And Damien goes and dies. Do you believe this? I can't believe it. No, it's rough. According to the Arkansas Supreme Court, this was considered substantial evidence of Damien's guilt. And the person who had testified to seeing Damien, Jason and Jesse walking together wearing long coats and

carrying long staffs had been Jerry Driver, the friendly neighborhood juvenile P.O. who clearly had his eye on Damien Echols for years. The Supreme Court also claimed that Judge Burnett had not been wrong to qualify Dale Griffiths as an expert. He hadn't been wrong to allow into evidence sticks that were collected from the woods a full month after the murders. And he hadn't been wrong to allow like animal skulls and Metallica posters in as evidence. And the whole sticks thing really gets me because once again, there's no blood on these sticks. There's no tissue on these sticks. There's no tissue on these sticks. There's no DNA on these sticks. They're just random sticks that the police went back to Robin Hood Hills and grabbed up. And Dr. Peretti was like, yeah, definitely some of these

sticks could have made some of these injuries, but there's no proof of that either way. And that was when Paradise Lost, The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills premiered. And its impact on this case cannot be denied because it was this documentary style film that aired on HBO, which had followed the trial and followed the people involved with the case. And it brought the plight of the West Memphis Three out of Arkansas and onto the world stage. Infamous film reviewer Roger Ebert said, quote, it's a great film, and one of the things it points out is the need, the real need to create the idea of satanic rituals in order to explain crimes, because it's not enough that there could be a sick deviant out there who would kill these boys, but everybody in town and in the courtroom and on the jury are all blinded by their fantasies of satanic cults, and they can't listen to reason, end quote. Many others felt the same way. They felt as if they were watching a trial that had happened decades before,

not in the current and modern times. One writer said, quote, I felt like I'd missed the part where they show why they thought these teenagers were responsible for murder, end quote. Now, this writer was actually named Burke Soles, and with the help of two friends, Kathy Bacon and Grove Pashley, he created the website WM3.org. And this sort of became a library of information on the case and its appeals. And it also gave birth to the Free the West Memphis 3 movement. Now, the town of West Memphis,

Arkansas, tried to ignore this new and honestly negative national attention it was getting, but the heat was building. Damian, Jason, and Jesse began to receive hundreds of letters from behind bars, letters from people of all ages, all walks of life, and all belief systems who wanted to show their support, to feel like they were doing something to bring the three young men some comfort. The case came to the attention of a man named Brent Turvey, a self-employed criminal profiler who taught an online course in evidence analysis. Turvey had a master's degree in forensic science from the University of New Haven,

and he was a partner in a company called Knowledge Solutions, which specialized in criminal profiling. He reviewed evidence and photos of the autopsies and prepared a report with his findings in 1997. In this report, Turvey pointed out that Michael Moore had a directional pattern abrasion just below his right shoulder. And this abrasion didn't match any of the evidence collected at the location where the bodies were found. And Turvey believed that the abrasion was inconsistent with any of the naturally occurring elements in that environment. In one crime scene photo, Turvey pointed out that there appeared to be a piece of cloth clutched in Michael Moore's right hand. And he said, I believe that this is a critical piece of evidence that we need to find and have it examined because, like, where is it? I see it in his hand in the pictures, but it's not entered into evidence anywhere.

Like, what was this piece of cloth? Turvey pointed out that the patterned injuries all over Stevie's face could have been bite marks, writing, quote, bite mark evidence is very important in a criminal case because it demonstrates behavior and lends itself to individuation. It can reveal to an examiner who committed the act because bite marks can be as unique as fingerprints, end quote. As far as Christopher Byers went, Turvey stated that the wounds were more advanced, more extensive, more overtly sexually oriented, and included the use of a knife. Christopher's stepfather, John Mark Byers, had testified to having given Chris a beating with a belt right before he'd gone missing. Remember, Chris was supposed to clean out the garage, and he'd gone, and he was like skateboarding down the road on his stomach, and John Mark Byers found him, brought him home, and allegedly

hit him on the backside with a belt a bunch of times. So Turvey looked for supporting evidence of this beating, and he found three sets of injuries on Chris's backside. Turvey believed that two sets of these injuries were not consistent with a belt. The third set of wounds that had been described in the autopsy report as being five superficial cutting wounds on the left side of Chris's backside, Turvey said these were actually lacerations and they were the most consistent with a belt wound. Turvey said, quote, It is further the opinion of this examiner that after having received this set of injuries, which tore open the skin and would have resulted in some severe bleeding, the victim would have been unable to walk or ride a bike without incredible pain and discomfort. End quote. Brent Turvey also claimed that he did not believe the place where the bodies had been found had been the place the murders happened. He believed there were at least a total of four different crime scenes.

The abduction site, so the place from which these kids had been taken, the attack site, so a different building or a home or some other separate structure where the actual attacks and murders happened. The dump site, obviously where the bodies had been left, and then also a vehicle which had been used to transport the bodies from where these kids had been murdered to where they were ultimately found in Robin Hood Hills. Turvey felt that the nature and extent of the wounds, especially the wounds that Chris Byers had suffered, would have taken time, uninterrupted privacy, and light, which the woods would not have had any of that since by the time the boys were last seen, it was already getting dark. There were search parties going through the woods very shortly after these kids, you know, went missing, just a of hours after people were out in the woods looking for them around like 830, nine o'clock.

So Turvey doesn't believe that the wounds that these boys sustained could have happened in a short time with like a very low amount of light. Turvey believed that some of the wounds Chris Byers' body displayed had happened while he was alive and conscious and he would have been screaming quite a bit. He would have been screaming very loudly and in pain, and nobody heard screams that night. Neighbors and people in the apartment building that boarded Robin Hood Hills had asked, like, did you hear any noises that night? And some neighbors came forward and said, like, yeah, we heard kids playing or we heard, you know, shouting or people, like, singing and stuff, but nobody reported hearing any screams that night. And that's why Turvey, as well as a lot of other people, believe that the murders did not happen at Robin Hood

Hills and the lack of blood there also supports that. Turvey claimed that he believed the fact that these boys were apprehended together and their bodies showed not a lot of defensive wounds, which means they didn't put up much of a fight. He believed that meant that they'd been approached by someone they knew and trusted. In March of 2000, Paradise Lost 2 Revelations premiered on HBO, and this, along with growing numbers of people who were fighting to free Damien, Jason, and Jesse, brought the case to the attention of some big names who had some big influence. The fact that the trial had attempted to link Damien's music taste to his ability or capability to murder three little boys had not sat well with some big recording artists.

Metallica was the first band to publicly announced his intentions to bring together a bunch of musicians to make a benefit CD to raise awareness and money for the plight of the West Memphis Three. Seven months later, that CD was released and it featured some big names like Tom Waits, Steve Earle, and Eddie Vedder. Now, when Pearl Jam played a concert in Memphis, Eddie Vedder dedicated his final song to, quote, a friend he hadn't met yet, who he was going to see in West Memphis the following day. That next day, Eddie Vedder, in a limousine, visited Damien Echols in a maximum security Arkansas prison. Before long, celebrities like Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson were also lending their voices to the movement. And from behind bars, the West Memphis Three became household names.

Many people who felt like they may be different or counterculture related to the plight of these three people. And they felt like if it could happen to Damien, Jason, and Jesse, it could happen to anyone. It could happen to them. By the beginning of 1997, Damien, Jason, and Jesse all had petitioned Judge Burnett under Arkansas Rule 37, which basically allows a convicted person to argue that their trials had been unfair for some reason, for various reasons. Since Rule 37 needs to be heard by the same judge who presided over the original trial, they got stuck with Burnett again, who, like I said, I believe he truly hated these three kids. And at this point, all three defendants

had been given public defenders for their original trials. And the weird thing is, like, it took years for their public defenders to even see a cent of their payment, even though the state was getting paid, the state's experts were getting paid. These public defenders didn't get any money for years to the point where they were taking out like personal loans. They were just trying to get money from anywhere they could to continue mounting a defense for their clients. I think what you're saying there needs to be said where you're like, oh, they definitely hated these three kids. No doubt. And they're not supposed to in their positions, right? They're supposed to, at least they might have feelings about the

kids, but not necessarily let them carry over to the way they conduct their job, right? And obviously, again, this goes to what we were saying earlier in this episode, that everybody hated these kids. Everyone looked at them and saw the three little victim, the three boys in their heads, and were like, these guys killed them. We as a community are going to make sure they pay for it. And you can't separate that as a judge, you're still a local person, you still know people there. And I'm saying that's wrong, by the way, I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying it's clearly obvious to me that this was a community effort where everybody, with the exception of maybe a few people, wanted to see these kids burn. And as far as the public attention it got

with celebrities and stuff, that's why we are where we are right now, right? Let's be honest. Because if that didn't happen, more than likely they're still in prison. 100 million percent they're still in prison. 100 million percent they're still in prison. That's scary because it's what you said. It can happen to anyone. And not every case is going to get the public exposure you would get from a celebrity supporting you. So if you're Stephanie Harlow and you're innocent of a crime, same situation like this, unless T-Swift comes out and supports you, you're probably going to die in prison. I'm not saying that as a joke either,

but that's the truth. She better, man. She better. She better. But it shouldn't be like that, right? It shouldn't take that public forum of these celebrities coming out and supporting you

before the pressures put on the people that are in charge of it to do the right thing. And these guys definitely, whether you believe they're guilty or not, they should not be in the position they're in right now. There definitely wasn't enough to convict them at trial with the circumstances surrounding this case being what they were. Yeah. And I think the people in West Memphis, Arkansas, even when stuff started coming out where they were like, maybe are we the bad guys?

They buried their head in the sand that a lot of people did. They were like, we're not going to accept this. Even I read a story where when Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam were playing in Memphis the day before he went to see Damien, even then in Memphis, Tennessee, across the bridge, there was radio DJs and and like stuff who were making fun of people who supported the West Memphis Three, like saying that they were losers and killer lovers and stuff like that, even in Memphis, to die on that hill because if they didn't, they had to admit that this indiscretion was beyond anything. It was like beyond the pale of what was acceptable. So like I said, these original public defenders for the original trials, they didn't get paid for years. Dan Stidham, Jesse's lawyer, had to take out a personal loan to cover expenses incurred during Jesse's trial. But these lawyers also knew or felt that

they knew that their clients were innocent. So they kept like working with them for years. They kept like writing briefs and appeals basically for free at times to try to help them. And they also knew that their clients who they'd become close to at this point, the best chance that they stood was to claim that they had been represented ineffectively. Right. So a few big name attorneys came on to help people like Barry Sheck, who'd worked on the O.J. Simpson trial and who at that time in the late 90s was very knowledgeable in

the field of DNA evidence, which is like an up and coming kind of field. We also had Edward Mallett, who was a trial attorney from Texas. He donated his time. And it was Mallett who found out while he was interviewing these previous lawyers in the case that the filmmakers had offered the filmmakers from the like, why would Damien do this? Why would he accept this money? And Val Price, who had represented Damien during his trial, he claimed, well, we needed the money. We were broke. We needed the money to hire expert witnesses. We needed the money to pay for legal costs. This was money that was direly needed. And this was money that Judge Burnett would not approve. You know, and these lawyers, the initial lawyers, all felt that it wasn't fair because the state had like a huge staff and basically as much money as they wanted at their disposal, whereas the public defenders were getting screwed. And they were like, no, you don't have

money to like build a defense for your client. Edward Mallett argued that because Damien's counsel and, you know, Jason and Jesse as well, because they'd been deprived of the funds they needed for experts and because they weren't getting paid themselves and they were desperate for money. They'd made an agreement with the filmmakers that put them into direct conflict of interest with their own clients. So this was kind of like the this was the argument of how they had been ineffectively represented because the lawyers had to make a deal with this third party, which kind of would put them, you know,

in conflict with their own clients and maybe not seeing things so clearly. Mallet had also had a dentist make imprints of bite marks of all three defendants. Basically, Jesse, Jason and Damien had them like, you know, bite into a mold so that you could see their teeth. And this was based on the theory that the marks on Stevie's face could have been made by human teeth. They brought a specialist in forensic dentistry in to tell Judge Burnett that he did believe they were bite marks on Stevie's face and that none of these marks matched the teeth patterns of any of the three defendants. But then the state also brought in their own dental expert who said that he did not believe the marks on Stevie's face, which had been described as bell-shaped in the autopsy report, were human bite marks. The original medical examiner, Dr. Frank Peretti, also testified that he thought maybe they could have been bite marks when he did the original autopsies. So he brought in a dentist to examine the marks when he was doing the autopsies. And he said that this dentist had said, no, they're not human bite marks.

And so then this dentist came and testified and was like, yeah, I looked at them and they were not made by human teeth. But then on cross-examination, the dentist couldn't show any proof that he'd ever examined Stevie. He had no notes. He hadn't written a report for the crime lab. He hadn't billed the crime lab for his time. So some people wonder if this actually happened. But regardless, it didn't really matter because Judge Burnett wasn't going to wasn't going to let this go through anyways. He would dismiss Damien's Rule 37 petition. It would take him years to dismiss Jesse's and Jason's. Those kind of hung in limbo for a while. But he dismissed Damien's because he wanted to get him on death row. He wanted to get him back to death row, basically. But the Supreme Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, would later overturn this ruling, writing that Burnett had been wrong to deny a review of the issues raised in death penalty cases without first exercising great care to assure that the denial rests on solid footing. Basically, they said, Burnett, you didn't do your job, particularly when it concerns an inmate who's on death row. We should be looking at this more seriously. We should be giving it the time that it deserves. But this just put the case back into

Burnett's hands. And a few months later, he issued the same ruling. Basically, he was like, OK, I gave it a couple of months and I still feel the same way. And this actually prompted the defense attorneys to file another motion requesting a different judge. Now, while that was happening, Jesse's attorney, Dan Stidman, who was still working tirelessly for him, he'd filed a motion to retest some items of physical evidence for DNA. He filed the motion really early on in the process, but then Judge Burnett didn't address it for half a year like just didn't answer the motion at all so stidman kind of like you know wrote a letter to judge burnett and he's like hey what's going on like you've had this for six months um can we get you know a hearing set or can you like answer my motion like deny it approve it something

and then judge burnett just never answered. And another eight months went by with radio silence from Judge Burnett. So Stidham wrote to the judge again, basically like, hey, if you're too busy for this and you can't get to this, I get it. But can we get another judge or something? Because this case has been going on for nine years. And honestly, I'm ready to be done with it. And I think it was an interview with Dan Stidham, who was Jesse's lawyer. But he said, man, at this point, I wished these kids were guilty. Like, I wish they were guilty because it would have been so easy to just walk away from it and say, like, I did my best. And I just want to move on with my life. But he said, I knew they weren't guilty. And I knew that if I wasn't

helping them, you know, very few other people would be. So I could not walk away from it. And it was like killing him, you know, financially, emotionally. But he just couldn't he couldn't abandon them. Now, Judge Burnett did finally respond to this. And he set a date for a hearing on the DNA evidence for November of 2002. Nothing would really happen with that. Well, then in 2007, a big break in the case came when a hair found in one of the shoelaces that had been used to tie up Michael Moore was tested, and it was found to not match any of the

three people who were sitting in prison for his murder. The hair was found to be consistent with someone else who was familiar with the three young victims, Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Stevie Branch. Not only that, but they retested some of the evidence from the crime scene and none of the evidence at the scene of the crime had any DNA on it that matched any of the defendants. So this is important because in 1993, your DNA technology is not going to be great. So it's not going to be as sensitive, basically. So if you don't find any of Damien, Jason, or Jesse's DNA on stuff found at the crime scene in 1993, it's like, okay, maybe the tests just weren't sensitive enough. But now in 2007, when we've come leaps and bounds, even though it seems like a short time, DNA took huge strides during that time. In 2007, it's much more sensitive.

And if there's DNA there at all, even if it's small traces, we'll pick it up. There was no DNA from Jesse, Jason, or Damien anywhere on anything at the crime scene, not on the shoelaces, not on the boys' clothes, not on the sticks that they randomly gathered, nothing. No, that's super compelling. And it's something where, as you said, the advancements in DNA increased a lot over that five-year period. And it's one of those situations where now you can go back and use the same evidence that you had from back then. Like you said, there's shoelaces, things like that, things that aren't going to change if they're preserved correctly, where you can go back and find DNA where during the first test, there was none. The one thing I say about Terry Hobbs, and I know there's a lot

to Terry Hobbs because you kind of hint on him in the first couple episodes And I know we're gonna get back to that in the last episode You could make an argument that he's a relative so 100% maybe that would be there but either way Take that out of the equation for a second the three individuals who brutally murdered these three kids Allegedly even if it's not sexual assault, we went back and forth on that, may have done some type of sexual activity with them,

if you're to believe that. If you're not, either way, there's an altercation that takes place. There's going to be rubbing. There's going to be tugging. There's going to be interactions where you would expect some form of transfer, trace evidence to occur during that altercation.

And there's nothing. There's nothing. So yeah, that's a problem if you're the prosecution, for sure. Now, the absence of evidence, just like in Adnan Syed, right? The absence of evidence, the absence of DNA evidence doesn't mean that they didn't do it, right? What was the thing that people were saying? The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. Sure. Right? Just because there's no evidence there doesn't mean you weren't there. I probably butchered that, but there were people in the comments saying it. And I was basically saying the absence of evidence doesn't equate to exculpatory evidence.

Doesn't mean you weren't there. Just means there was no DNA left behind. So yeah, we got to apply the same ideology to both. But the fact that we have this situation where there's no evidence just adds to the pile of information that suggests that maybe these three individuals didn't commit this crime yeah on top of everything else yeah because not just one thing now all you have is like a bunch of random like kids who claim they saw stuff or heard stuff that's literally the only evidence there's's no physical or DNA evidence tying these teenagers to these murders.

And they're sitting in prison for life. And Damien's on death row. And that's a problem. Right. Now, if they hadn't been accounted for where they said they were somewhere and they weren't there or their cell phone was pinging at said location. That's still circumstantial. Circumstantial. Maybe we get a little bit closer to it, though.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, this, what they found out with the new DNA stuff, that seemed to be sufficient enough for one of the loudest anti-West Memphis Three Voices to quiet down. And that was John Mark Byers, who suddenly jumped on the Terry Hobbs is the killer bandwagon, which honestly, I thought was a little too fast that he did that. All right. I thought he switched up real quick, which makes me suspect John Mark Byers even more, because if you did it, you don't care who the fall guy is as long as there's a fall guy. So when they're like, oh, it's not these three kids. He's like, yep, it's not. It's Terry Hobbs. It's anybody but me. Anybody but me.

OK, so, yeah, he's one of my top suspects, John Mark Byers. And we're going to get into that because by now, by the time this happens, his wife, Melissa, is dead mysteriously. All right. We're going to talk about that. So John Mark Byers was like, yeah, Terry Hobbs, he killed them. And, you know, suddenly he was telling reporters that these three young men who'd been sitting in prison were innocent the evidence was not enough for judge burnett though who once again denied the west memphis three a new trial because he's a dick man like at this point why can't you just give them a new trial like they deserve it but lawyers for all three filed appeals with the Arkansas Supreme Court. And on

November 4th, 2010, the higher court ordered the trial court to reconsider whether this new evidence justified ordering a new trial or even exonerating the three men altogether. And as we will find out, which we're going to talk about briefly at the top of the next episode, they would take an Alford plea, right, which we're going to discuss that. But they also brought in some other experts to talk about basically alternate theories about what could have happened. And that's where the turtle theory comes in. So we're going to talk about the Alford plea really quick. We're going to talk about the turtle next time. And we're going to talk about these alternate evidence or these alternate suspects focusing on Terry Hobbs and John Mark Byers, who seem to be like the favored two.

Yeah, I'm interested in that because we have for seven episodes really focused on because they were found guilty of it. And again, eventually they took an Alford plea, which doesn't mean they're innocent. Just means that they said, hey, we're keeping our innocence. But at the same time, we're acknowledging that you put together a case that would most likely result in us being found guilty. Which is not true. But they were found guilty. They were too scared. Yeah.

But that doesn't mean that the state put together a case that would most likely make them be found guilty. They were just afraid, I think, to take their chances again because they knew what the state had. But that's what the Alford plea basically means is, hey, we understand that the evidence you're going to present in the court that we're going to be in probably going to result in us not getting out. But I will say this, and it's going to be in, probably going to result in us not getting out. But I will say this, and it's going to be reiterating what we said earlier.

You can be in the school of thought that these guys are guilty if you're really listening to everything that we've covered, even the things that we didn't cover as much at length as far as the 19 times where Jesse Miskelley was was asked, you understand what he's saying. If you just look at the facts of the case and you're putting yourself in the mindset of a jury member, is there a reasonable doubt there? Is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I think most people would say, no, I can see Stephanie nodding her head. No, if you're listening on audio, I think most people would look at this and say, man, there's definitely reasonable doubt here as far as these guys their guilt and if that's the case if the defense is able to do that

then it's your obligation to find them innocent even like us with it non-scied like i think we both kind of are like leaning towards it none definitely had something to do with the death of hayman lee right i think we both are kind of feeling that way. But even we can say they didn't have enough evidence to like put this dude in prison for life. It was weak. Stronger than this case. If you're comparing that case to this case,

that case is a home run. But yeah, in the context of all cases out there, when you're supposed to see a case all the way through where as the prosecution paints the picture, it becomes more and more apparent that the person or persons did it. Yeah, that's not the case here. And it is, it is weak on, you do have a lot of problems with the Adnan Syed case. So, but yeah, those two, other than the fact that, you know, there was some circumstantial evidence, that's where the parallels end because this case is much weaker

than that case. And we talk about innocent people being put in prison for crimes they didn't commit and Adnan Syed being a poster child for that. I know the West Memphis Three is one as well. And I think that's more appropriate. I had said a question as far as when we were covering Adnan, I think on Crime Weekly News where I said, hey, if I was that person in charge of kind of finding that case that I wanted to hang my hat on as far as a case where the person one where it was kind of a collaborative effort by all entities, including the community, where everyone felt like these were the guys and they were dead set on it and it didn't matter how they got there. I always caution myself, and maybe you guys are going to hate it, but there could be a world, although I don't personally believe it, where they did it, but I don't know what evidence is

out there that would prove that, where you could convict them in a court of law. That's what it really matters. I mean, we weren't there. They're claiming their innocence. No one can put them at the crime scene. There's no tangible evidence that puts them there. So other than their past, as far as Damien Echols, like in pentagrams, what do you really have? You have a bottle that was found at a bridge where you can't confirm that it was dropped that day. You have a horrible testimony from Jesse Miskelley as far as guilt knowledge is concerned. And who went back and forth, by the way. It's not like he confessed and then stuck to that. Right. He's kind of, he seesawed. And then you have some witnesses, you know, just to put it out there who have said, yeah, I heard him confess or he said something to me.

Hearsay, your honor. Well, it's not hearsay. It's hearsay. No, the definition of hearsay would be me saying Stephanie told me this about about someone else. But if you're saying that you directly heard someone say I killed this person, it's not hearsay. That's your statement. So hearsay would be the sense of like, okay, this person told me that they were with Stephanie Harlow that day.

Well, that's hearsay. That's not Steph. That person's not saying it. You are. It's hearsay. But if they're saying, listen, I, with my own ears, heard Stephanie Harlow say she killed him, then that's direct testimony. That's your-

You just said, hear Stephanie Harlow say. Hearsay. There you go. There you go. There you go. So yeah, that witness testimony would be admissible in court. It's not hearsay, but- That's crazy to me because you could just make shit up. Well, you could, but that's when it comes to verify.

Well, Stephanie, if you hear, if I'm, you and I are friends, okay? This is obviously hypothetical. You got to qualify this, but if were close, and if I said to you Listen, I just killed this person, you know I or if I if you just overheard a conversation where I forgot to unhit the record the record button Mm-hmm. Yeah, you could be lying But if you're willing to go under oath and say I heard Derek talking on the phone with someone and he said he killed James He said he killed him. Well, guess what? The jury ultimately has to choose whether to believe you or not,

but you're saying you heard it directly with your own ears. So it's up to the jury to believe how credible you are. That's where the whole subjectivity comes into it. Like these kids, they clearly believe them or their own biases, the jury's own biases. As soon as they heard something like, yep, see, he admitted it. He told these little girls, the 11 and 14 year old, he must've done it. So that's where the subjectivity comes in as far as the jury members deciding whether or not they believe the witnesses that were put on the stand. And if the whole community is on the same page, as far as these guys did it, well, what are they going to say? We believe the witnesses. It's a vicious circle because it all goes back to the fact that before these individuals were arrested, it was already going through the community that they were guilty.

Yeah, for sure. So you can't dismiss that because the fact is some of those jury members were members of that community who also heard that information before becoming jury members. So are they tainted? Probably. Yes. Probably. They're going into it knowing, oh yeah, that picture was circling about Damien months before

they even arrested him. Yeah. You know, they knew it. They were onto something. They got him. Okay. Let's just wrap this up. They must know what they're talking about.

Yeah. You assume that the law enforcement people do what they do. And they're going to be ethical. You assume that the law enforcement people have evidence. Well, I mean, the evidence wasn't presented at court, but they, at that point they were like, Hey, it's weak, but they must know it's them or they wouldn't have them here. You know? And so they, and by that time you're already on the witness list. Yeah. What are you going to do? So overall, and you probably already convinced yourself that you heard what you said you heard, because otherwise, you know, you're about to get up and lie under oath. So you can like rationalize to yourself like, yeah, I definitely I definitely heard that. Absolutely. I will say with the kids and I don't know them from they could walk by me tomorrow. I wouldn't know them. Obviously, they're older now right i would say so yeah wouldn't know him from a hole in the wall but is there based on the the personality that you've described for me and i think for all of us

over the last seven parts of damian eccles could i see him as a smart ass saying something like that that's what i'm saying honestly honestly i think he probably did because but maybe in the tone intonation in which he said it where it's like the same way he was answering the interrogation right because he was already being like harassed like the same way he was answering the interrogation, right? Cause he was already being like harassed by the police. So he could have been standing with his friends and like, Oh yeah,

I killed them and I'm going to go find another two to kill. You know, he could, it could have said that way, or he could even said it like thinking street cred type thing. Like I'm a dangerous guy. I'm a bad-ass. I don't know.

Not going to put myself in his mindset, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said it, especially if two different people heard it doesn't make mean that he actually did but I could see I could see it being true where he said it just why he would say something like that beyond he's a stupid freaking kid who draws pentagrams on his notebook cuz he thinks it's cool like and I knew 17 kids like him in high school man you know You know? Pick your friends better, Stephanie. They weren't my friends.

I just knew them, dude. Like, we had a whole group. We had a whole group of kids who wore trench coats, okay? They were called the Trench Coat Mafia. That's what we called them. Yeah, the Trench Coat Mafia. Right? So it was like a thing, okay?

And they were edgy, and they were counterculture, and they were cool, and they were counterculture and they were cool and they were better than everyone and they were too cool for school kind of thing. And it was just like we weren't afraid of them. We weren't like, oh, these people are definitely – because we knew that five months ago, Jimmy was wearing braces and had pants up to his freaking belly button. We knew Jimmy wasn't a threat Jimmy was just wearing trench coat now cuz Jimmy wanted some street cred and he wanted to be cool and he wanted to walk around and wear like eyeliner and black nail polish and nobody cared and play hacky sack at lunch nobody cared nobody was like oh they're definitely gonna kill someone it was just like I knew

kids who did stupid things and you know drew pentagrams and also like the 90s was big for that Like I think that's when the craft came out. I think that's when the craft first came out Remember they were like they drew a big pentagram in the floor for who's a bulk they like Held them up with their fingers and did seances and stuff It was a time for that, you know in the media and everything like that's not to me It doesn't say anything besides. He's a stupid kid who's got too much time on his hands. That's all.

Definitely not a good decision to be saying stuff like that. If he did, we don't know if he did, but if he did, yeah. And I'm just giving my opinion. I got nothing, nothing to base it on.

I wouldn't doubt it if he did. I think, but if he said it doesn't mean he did it. No, I agree with that. I agree with that. Okay. To wrap this up one apology for me. Cause I'm looking at the times, probably a little off on the ads tonight.

If you noticed for the people who are super sensitive to the ads, we're probably top heavy tonight where most of the ads are in the first half of the episode. Good news is the second half you had no ads, but I'm usually the time guy with that. And we had some videos tonight. I think we were a little off the episode. We talked a lot more than we expected. So I was anticipating a shorter episode and I was off on that. So I apologize if that bothers anyone putting it out there. Most of you are fine with it. That was the only real correction I had for the night. I know based on how I'm editing it in my head with Shannon, most of the ads are going to be the top of the show. But like I said, second half, it's just nothing but story time.

Nothing but story time. Anything from you? No, we'll finish up next week and then we'll move on to the next case. And hey, just, you know, we have a couple of cases that we wanna cover in these upcoming weeks and months, but just for fun and just for, you know, future sake,

throw some cases in the comments that you would like to see us talk about. And then I'll go through and write them down. Cool. All right. Very nice. Very nice. Awesome.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter. What's our Instagram? It is Crime Weekly Pod. That's right. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Crime Weekly Pod on Twitter, too. Yeah. Are you sure? Pretty damn sure. I run the accounts. It's right. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Crime Weekly Pod on Twitter too. Yeah.

Are you sure? Pretty damn sure. I run the accounts. It's the same? You know, it's almost like we did that intentionally. You're funny. All right. We'll wrap it up.

I appreciate you guys being here. We appreciate you guys being here, I should say. He always says I and just completely leaves me out of everything. Yeah. It's like you're not even here. And I'm like, I or we? I always have to say this to him. I or we?

Well, that's a whole different conversation when I'm talking about coffee and dealing with people and me being on calls with someone, referring into the first person because you're not on the call. And you're like, wait, it's we. Yes, I'm representing both of us. I'll just say we from now on. She does do that. She's not lying, you guys. She does correct me. No, it's we though. And I'm like, I get that. I get that.

Oh, this relationship. I have issues, okay? I'm definitely the big bro where sometimes I just want to hug you. Sometimes I just want to slap you. I'm damaged emotionally. We're all damaged. Let's be honest. We're all damaged let's be honest we're all we're all damaged if you say if you say you're not you're lying you're lying okay wrapping it up appreciate you guys being here

be safe out there we'll see you next week we appreciate you guys being here we do we do be safe good night

bye Bye.