Talk:West Memphis Three

Discussing the POV issues

The article only has a very minor mention - toward the end - that DNA testing was essentially concluded in July, 2007. DNA from the victims was found, as was DNA from an unknown person. There was no DNA from Damien, Jason, nor Jessie. It is beyond absurd to suggest that the perpetrators of this crime left no DNA.

Under Documentaries and Studies..."In 2006, Josh van der Meulen, a stone mason from Grimsby, Ontario, began an email campaign to persuade state officials to reopen the case. Mr. van der Meulen has advocated that some of the case evidence is contradictory and the forensic evidence excludes the convicted as suspects." Has anyone heard of this campaign or person? An email campaign?--Mikala Arteaga 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What's happened to this article? It was an excellent, concise summary of the case 3 months ago; now it's completely incoherent.

I encourage EVERYONE with an interest in this case to read the crime library article. It presents the fullest available account on the net and is reasonably unbiased. I don't think anyone who looks at the case in detail can come away believing that justice was done. Yes, they were convicted, but they were convicted by a conservative jury during a time when satanic panic was rampant. The prosecution relied on a 'satanic expert' who it turns out got his degree by mail order.

I don't see how this page can list such outright fabrication without anyone opposing it. For example, the page states outright that "bite marks" were found on one of the bodies, but this is a lie- the pathology report stated that the ragged wound was caused by a serated knife. But hey, let's not let facts interfer with our blind defense of three convicted child-murderers, shall we? |It's not a fabrication, it was a post-trial determination by pathologists, and it was enough to get court orders for dental records.

The POV of this page includes much material drawn from the "Free the West Memphis Three" website. It does not present a balanced view with phrases like "the police mishandled the crime scene" when that has not been established. Rmhermen 03:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the phrase "critics charge" is present immediately before the phrase "police mishandled the crime scene". Several critics are named (documentarians, writers, lawyers), so noting whether they're "pro" or "anti" seems like an ad hominem attack. Perhaps we could improve the article's wording and citations so they're less like weasel words.

The question is, does being "pro" or "anti" alter the substance of their arguments? Is their research sloppy? Has anyone rebutted the various critics? Some of the article's wording does seem to have a bias against the police, so maybe we could work on that. Also, I certainly wouldn't object to a fuller examination of the case, including citing those who think the convicts are guilty.

Anon, 05 April 2005, 19:56 UTC

To be fair, the controversy surrounding the West Memphis case is the supposed mishandling of evidence and unethical actions taken by the local authorities and courts. I read The Devil's Knot some time ago and it would certainly seem a fair assessment to make. I don't know of any organizations that are actively trying to keep the three in prison as there rarely are any such groups for convicts. --Quid 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph (see last part of "Aftermath" section), which mentions that many people are content with the official court ruling, in an effort to address the imbalance of the article. As Quid pointed out, the people who are satisfied with the case as it stands have not set about trying to reinforce the evidence which came to trial, as they believe it to be accurate and sufficient. As a result there are few relevant anti-'free the WM3' sources from which to quote or refer to, which explains the bias of the article. Anonymous 15.08, 8 June 2005

"They took his little manhood before he even knew what it wuz." Eyeon 12:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to all this, so I'm not willing to jump in and start hacking away, but this article stinks of bias. Here is a short list of some of the things that ought to be added/changed. I'm using this page of court documents for reference: http://callahan.8k.com/index.html

Jessie Miskelly may have been questioned for twelve hours, but he confessed after three. Check the timeline on above page. Of course they kept questioning him after he confessed, the way it is worded now makes it sound like he was browbeaten for twleve hours.

Jessie Miskelly confessed again, with is lawyer present, after his trial. He has recanted that confession as well.

Damien Echols was hospitalized multiple times for mental illness, not just "Hospitalized for observation" or however the article puts it now. His mental illness was severe enough to get him total disability (see exhibit 500 link above).

The mishandling of the crime scene and most of the other issues identified in the article are readily acknowledged even by neutral commentators. See the article at crimelibrary.com for example. If the article doesn't quote any anti-wm3 sources this is probably because they simply don't exist.

I think this page needs a neutrality disagreement statement. Beyers stepfather DID have his teeth removed and had dentures fitted .... I JUST Finished the documentary, that statement is pure BULLSHIT...\\\ \\\

The second documentary has an interview with the dentist and all the dental records, it's quite factual. Sean Bonner 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Cleanup attempted

I tried to inject some opposing views into the article to bring down the bias. There is a whole lot more to be done before this article is worthwhile, but I got started. A quick summary:

1). Added some info on Misskelly's second confession in the second about his first one. I also removed the quotation marks around "confession" (is there anything more POV that snide quotation marks? You might feel that the confession is disputed, but it's been upheld in multiple courts, so it cannot just be dismissed (not that it can just be assumed to be true).

2). I added some info on Damien Echols' mental problems, which are far, far more extensive than the article would have you believe. A lot more work needs to be done to paint an accurate picture of the man.

3). I also noted that while there are many people who would like to see this case reopened and examined, many of these issues have been dealt with on appeal, with the courts deciding for the prosecution.

Please discuss. I'd really like to see this article get a little less biased. Jordoh 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My discussion: this is literally a witch hunt. And being fucked in the head doesn't make you a murderer. 220.236.48.13 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people?

The statement "Today, many people still believe that the right people were arrested for the murders of the three little boys, particularly in Arkansas." seems a bit weaselly. Who are these many people? Was their any surveys done among Arkansas residents or nationally? --Cab88

Yes and they totally remove any non-supporting links. If it does not flow like the movies then it is edited. Well I got lots of time to continue putting them in there. And everytime they delete relevant and counter information I will put the links back and remove the for profit organizations link.

Cleanup

I have gone through and removed the extensive editorialising, both pro- and anti-, on this page, as well as placing requests for citations in a few places. I am likely to remove anything so marked that isn't cited.--Apeloverage 07:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentences from the article which are reproduced below.

All of them are relevant to the article. However, they are unsourced, and I had put a request for sources (above) which wasn't done. Since this article has been the subject of biased rewrites (from both sides), I thought it was appropriate to remove them. Please feel free to add them in again, with references.

i) For example, once the bodies were discovered, the area was taped off and a list of those who had immediate access to the area the bodies were located was maintained by Detective Diane Hester. An alternate path was made through the woods to avoid the primary routes [citation needed].

ii) However she viewed only a duplicate of the records made available to the public some ten years after they had been examined by newspaper writers and others [citation needed].

iii) However vagrants were frequently reported fighting in back for discarded food [citation needed].

iv) although in this area there are more black people than white [citation needed].

v) She [Vicki Hutcheson] also alleges a widespread conspiracy to keep her quiet [citation needed].

vi) Although in light of his actual age (17 years old) this [Miskelly's parents not being present at his interview] is not unusual [citation needed].

vii) which again is not unusual [only a small part of his interview being recorded] since he confessed after less than four hours and twenty-seven minutes.

In the case of vi and vii, the facts that need citing are whether this is indeed normal police procedure, rather than whether Miskelly's parents were present or whether he confessed.

--Apeloverage 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add...

"Misskelley's videotaped confession was played for the jury." His confession was not videotaped, it was recorded on audio and that is what was played for the jury.

In addition, the article is not clear which trial heard the recorded confession. To my knowledge it was the Misskelly trial. The tape was not admitted to the Baldwin and Echols trial.

Put it in, but with references. --Apeloverage 08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"No one can deny that the case was wrongly handled...no one can deny that there is no "concrete evidence" that links Damien, Jason and Jessie to these murders....More importantly though, NO-ONE can deny that after watching Paradise Lost, there is an underlying reason (and I dont mean the black clothes worn by the offenders) why the majority of West Memphis agreed that these boys were guilty. Ive never seen 3 boys with less conviction, ever. If a killer doesnt leave behind sufficient evidence to link him to it, does that make him innocent of the crime? NO. I find the article to be informative but, so far, nothing gives more evidence against these boys than their visible and unmistakebly guilty body language. 80% of the way we communicate with people is not by our words, but by our body language. Maybe the supporters of the W/M/Three should put aside technicalities for a second and take a look at the bigger picture. 26/10/2006 CP

The "bigger picture" is that they LOOK guilty? "Guilty body language" is not sufficient evidence to convict someone of a felony, nor should it be. I hope to God you are just a troll, because this is nothing short of lunacy.128.194.86.217 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Jason

A "troll"? Wow, you sound mature!! I hope to God that YOU'RE not one of those people who just believe someone because they say so......that's all we need in the world, more vulnerable fools walking around. Did you watch 'Paradise Lost'? I think Damien and Jason were as proud as punch of what they'd done, and it wasn't until they found themselves in prison that they realised playing with peoples lives isnt just a game. It was then, and only then, that we started to hear protests of "we're innocent", from these boys. Why did Damien lie on the stand? The reason people lie is to hide something from another party or to cover up the truth. But hang on, I forgot, they ARE innocent because they SAY so. Give me a break!! 04/11/2006 CP

Are you familiar with the concept of the burden of proof? They may very well be guilty, I can't claim that I know for sure one way or another, but I don't see any concrete evidence. Whether or not they actually committed the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and saying that they "look guilty" doesn't even come close to satisfying that burden.128.194.86.217 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Jason

I don't see how Jason showed anything to anyone in Paradise Lost. He didn't really say anything to anyone and mostly kept to himself.

More Requests for References

I have put in several more 'citation needed's, and am likely to remove anything which isn't referenced in a reasonable time, for example two weeks, unless I can find a reference myself.

I think this is a reasonable thing to do, given that this page has been the subject of several very partisan re-writes. Even if it results in a much sparser article, that's better than what it is now, chock full of 'might-be facts'. --Apeloverage 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some citations, and I changed the section about Echols refusing to answer during the polygraph because he was afraid of the chair. *After* the test, he was asked what he was afraid of, and he said "The electric chair" 68.8.110.219 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Appeal Process

I have decided to send a DOD MEMORANDUM to the FBI as soon as the community of West Memphis contact me back via e-mail for the FBI to investigate the case, reopen it and appeal it to the Federal Courts of Appeal. I hope that I am not to late for the one on death row. Please help with any comments you have.

My point of contact is whitetigerofgod@hotmail.com.

DOD? That is about the silliest thing I have read on this case yet. The one on death row is right where he belongs according to the courts. FBI has no power over courts.

wanker.220.236.48.13 10:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well lets pray that you or one close to you is never wrongly convicted because as we all know the courts must be definitively correct in all things. Love the way that right wing fundies hate the govt in so many aspects, yet accept this judgement of the courts 100% uncritically.

 Because the courts who found that boxer Ruben Carter Guilty, but let OJ and Michael Jackson off, would never make a mistake. Guilty or not Guilty (because a court does not find people innocent) mistakes were made, and this will never be settled, until it is placed back in the courts, with a jury of peers. I almost hate the fact I was asigned this case to do reports on for a Law class last year.

Unbalanced and misleading

The artical reads like most things in this case. Onesided and misleading. The entire page is bias and reads like a advertisement for the movies and the for profit support groups.

"Dr. Dale Griffis, an expert in occult killings[5]"

If he's an expert, consider me a Nobel Prize Winner.

He paid for his degree, and didn't do even one hour of study to obtain it. Want proof? Write to Columbia Pacific (a degree mill) and ask for a copy of his PhD thesis.

TWISTED INFORMATION=

"Echols admitted that he has 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 a copied spell." This statement taken from the article is inncorrect, Echols did not admit that he was in the occult, he admitted he was wicker, 2 completely different things. Also, Echols has already established while on oath, that he did not draw the pentagram or the upside down crosses on the register, he bought it second hand, and these were already drawn on it upon purchase. If something is going to be written male sure it is true. I dont say innocent or guilty, I just say dont give up on the case, there is obviously someone out there who was involved but not caught.

i::t's called Wicca, not wicker, and it IS a form of occultism in that it's "knowledge hidden from view" by stupid people who are afraid of it and think it's satanic. Wiccans are, by and large, kind and hippie-like people who care about the earth and the people on it. as opposed to christians who seem to love to point the finger and scream "SATANISM!"

" Wiccans are, by and large, kind... people who care about the earth and the people on it. as opposed to christians"

So Christians are OPPOSED to caring about the earth and the people in it? What about the Jews? I guess you think they drink the blood of gentile babies, right? Sheesh. This asylum is run by inmates...

Opinion

"having had the skin of his penis removed with surgical precision."

This is yet another example of an opinion. It was argued in court, but isn't a fact. Stidham never used this, and he is the only lawyer to still be working on the case since 1993; his profiler seen in Paradise Lost 2 clearly refutes this claim saying it was anger not precision.

"On the night of the murders, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant near the crime scene in Robin Hood Woods reported seeing an African-American male "dazed and covered with blood and mud" inside the women's restroom of the restaurant. ... This apparent neglect of an important lead was especially criticized after a hair identified as belonging to an African-American was recovered from a sheet, which had been used to wrap one of the victims.[citation needed]"

Not a drop of blood at the organized crime scene, and a man covered in blood is an "important lead"? Give me a break!

"Human bite marks" - Again, this is disputed, and is not fact. It was based on photographic evidence, and the defence failed to convince the judge in court it was a bite mark - ergo calling it a bite mark is unbalanced, biased opinion.

Weasel words

Given the tremendous amount of support these young men have, I was surprised to see all the weasel words employed in the article and the vague references to a profiler etc. etc. The "profiler" is Brent Turvey whose career got quite a boost from his very public involvement with the WM3 movement. I was also suprised not to see any comment about Dale griffiths, the self-described "Cult Cop". In addition, the article is just a big mess and suffers from a lack of a coherent narrative. I marked up what i could and I encourage those who follow this case more closely than I to avail themselves of th voluminous sources available at their supporters sites. Virtually every fact or alleged fact can be supported or refuted via their sources. Of course, if you want to verify a fact that suggests guilt, you'll have to look elsewhereLiPollis 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tribute & Support Section getting over large

I would note that this section is getting to be waaay too long. It may be time to split this off into it's own article entitled Celebrity Support for The West Memphis 3 and tributes. A few of the most notable examples could be left in the main article with a direction to " see main article Celebrity Support for The West Memphis 3 and tributes". Please discuss.LiPollis 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc. Cleanup

Whilst reading the article, I cleaned it up a bit by fixing many grammar mistakes. I clarified some confusing sentences. I also fix inconsistencies within the article. I also made it ever-so-slightly more acceptable by Wikipedia formatting standards. BlueJ774 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. if you have time, another pass through for grammar and formnatting would be helpful. I am reluctant to do it myself since I might be tempted to town down some of the language in support of the men and cut some of the repetative and farily meaningless stuff written about Dale Griffiths testimony. His testimony was laughable and fairly meaningless in terms of facts. The West memphis 3 support site goes over every silly claim he made in incredible detail so I think it's not necessary to repeat them all here. I'd be happy with a statment that just said a self-styled cult-cop testified and made a number of generalized claims that could apply to almost any homicide such as and then just enumerate the most important claims.LiPollis 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting used to the system here, but I removed some deliberately inflammatory material posted at the bottom of the talk page. CharlieAngel 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

References need to be made consistant

Because of the DNA testing, there has been some edits to this article that use a form of referencing that is inconsistant with current wikipedia standards and clashes with the inline citations used in the rest of the article. If someone has the time and the knowledge, it would be best if you could tease out inline cites from those offsite references in the section titled Aftermath. As they stand now, the numbers of the offsite cites do not match with the numbered inline citations and could cause an editor just delete all that new material as not matching the numbered references properly.LiPollis 04:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

After seeing both films and reading this article I still don't see that there is any "evidence" other than the confession of the retarded boy (police be SO proud of yourselves) and the inevitable post-arrest "he confessed" statements from unreliable people. Am I missing something? That stepfather always looked like the most likely to cut someone to me.John celona 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)