Talk:West Memphis Three

Unreal

Just curious why this wiki shows the clearly defined and individualized images of the ‘assailants’ yet no images of the victims connected to their bios.

1. shamefulwikipedia

2001:56A:7DAA:F500:C164:67DF:2BA6:3EC2 (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only display images that are not copyrighted, or otherwise permitted to be published here, per an image use policy. Do you have any such images? —ADavidB 13:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute: "No Physical Evidence" Claim in Article

I've noticed a significant inaccuracy in the article regarding the claim that "No physical evidence connected Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley to the crime." This statement is currently supported by six references, but none of them provide a basis for asserting that there was no physical evidence whatsoever.

Evidence Presented at Trial

In fact, there was physical evidence presented during the trials, specifically fiber evidence that linked fibers found at the crime scene to items in the homes of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. The evidence included:

• Green fibers that matched a shirt found in Damien Echols' home.
• A red rayon fiber that was linked to an item in Jason Baldwin's home.

While it may be argued that this evidence was weak or inconclusive, it was nevertheless physical evidence that was considered by the jury.

Additional Potential Evidence

Moreover, additional items were cited as potentially linking the suspects to the crime, including:

• The lake knife, retrieved from behind Jason Baldwin's home.
• Wax residue, found near the crime scene.
• DNA from a pendant worn by Damien Echols, which was consistent with DNA from one of the victims (though not conclusive).

Proposal for Edit

I believe it is misleading to claim categorically that "no physical evidence" connected the defendants to the crime. I propose that this statement be amended to accurately reflect the facts presented at trial. For example:

"Physical evidence, including fiber matches and other exhibits, was presented during the trial that the prosecution argued linked Echols and Baldwin to the crime."

Supporting Sources

1. The Trials of the West Memphis Three:

"Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three" by Mara Leveritt provides detailed information on the fiber evidence and the lake knife. The fibers were described as having similar colors and types to fibers found in the homes of Echols and Baldwin. This book provides a well-researched summary of the evidence used by the prosecution.

2. Trial Transcripts:

The trial transcripts from Echols and Baldwin's trial reference the fiber evidence and other exhibits presented by the prosecution. These transcripts are available at Callahan's WM3 Archive, which contains complete records of the trial proceedings. Specific references to the fiber matches can be found in the trial testimony of prosecution experts.

3. The Lake Knife Evidence:

The knife retrieved from the lake behind Jason Baldwin's home was considered during the investigation, although it was not introduced as a definitive link during the trial. Its discovery and context were presented by the prosecution, and Leveritt discusses this in "Devil's Knot."

4. DNA on Pendant:

Leveritt also discusses the pendant worn by Damien Echols, which had DNA consistent with one of the victims. Although the match wasn't considered definitive proof, it still represents potential evidence relevant to the investigation and trial narrative.

5. News Coverage of the Trial:

Contemporary news coverage of the trial also provides details on the evidence presented, including coverage by The Commercial Appeal (a Memphis-based newspaper). Articles from the time summarize key aspects of the prosecution's case, including the fiber evidence and other physical items presented to the jury. These sources can be valuable for understanding how the evidence was portrayed to the public and considered during the trial.

I welcome feedback and discussion on how best to revise this statement to more accurately reflect the facts presented during the trials. MiamiManny (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

None of the secondary sources say physical evidence linked the 3 to the crime. They say the direct opposite.

Wikipedia is written from reliable secondary sources. In your post there is not even one reference to a reliable secondary source that denies what the RS cited in the article say. Leveritt agrees that the ostensible fibre evidence does not tie them to the crime. The sentence in the article does not state that there was "no physical evidence whatsoever". It states that there is no physical evidence that connects the three to the crime. What do reliable sources say?

Blume, John H.; Helm, Rebecca K. (November 2014). "The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty". Cornell Law Review. 100 (1). Ithaca: Cornell Law School: 157–192.

In fact, no physical evidence had ever been discovered linking the three alleged perpetrators to the crime.

"West Memphis Three". Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

All three were arrested in June 1993, though no physical evidence connected them to the crime and each had alibis.

Dewan, Shaila (October 30, 2007). "Defense Offers New Evidence in a Murder Case That Shocked Arkansas". The New York Times.

Two of the men, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, are serving life in prison, while one, Damien W. Echols, is on death row. There was no physical evidence linking the teenagers, now known as the West Memphis 3, to the crime.

Monroe, Rachel (September 26, 2018). "Damien Echols and the Secrets of Magick". The New York Times.

They were pentagram-doodling, Metallica-listening nonconformists in their Bible Belt community, and they were charged despite the lack of any physical evidence tying them to the crime scene and a dozen witnesses placing them elsewhere.

Dunne, Carey (October 27, 2018). "Magick 'Saved My Life': the Former Death Row Inmate Turned Warlock". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group.

In their search for suspects, the town labeled Damien and his two metalhead friends “Satanists” and accused them of killing the boys in a ritual sacrifice. No physical evidence tied the three teenagers to the brutal murders.

Cambial — foliar❧ 05:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that you've cited several secondary sources that state there was no physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime. However, these sources are factually inaccurate and do not align with the primary trial records or contemporary coverage that directly cited physical evidence introduced during the trial.

Let me provide examples of reliable sources that explicitly mention the physical evidence used against Echols and Baldwin, which included fiber evidence and other exhibits:

In upholding Echols' conviction in 1996, the state Supreme Court noted that two people testified Echols bragged about the killings, an eyewitness put Echols at the scene, fibers similar to the boys' clothing were found in Echols' home, a knife was found in a pond behind Baldwin's home, Echols' interest in the occult and his telling police that he understood the boys had been mutilated before officers had released such details.

Convicted child killers freed after plea change, NBC News, Aug. 19, 2011

In upholding Echols' conviction in 1996, the state Supreme Court noted that two people testified that Echols bragged about the killings; an eyewitness put Echols at the scene; fibers similar to the boys' clothing were found in Echols' home; a knife was found in a pond behind Baldwin's home; Echols had an interest in the occult and told police that he understood the boys had been mutilated before officers had released such details.

"West Memphis Three" freed after 18 years, CBS News, August 19, 2011

’’’Prosecutors introduced evidence at Misskelley's trial that linked fibers from T-shirts taken from Baldwin's and Echols' homes to fibers found at the crime scene.’’’

'Weird' Echols painted as witch-hunt prey, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 1, 1994

The accuracy of Misskelley's identification of Baldwin and Echols as the killers was established by guilty verdicts at a separate trial resting entirely on independent evidence, because Misskelley's confession could not be used as evidence at that trial. That independent evidence included clothing fibers found on the victims' clothes that were microscopically indistinguishable from items found in the Baldwin and Echols residences, and from various witnesses who heard Echols and Baldwin admit committing the crimes.

The Guilty and the `Innocent': An Examination of Alleged Cases of Wrongful Conviction from False Confessions, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 1999.

We've got a fiber that was found on Stevie's shirt that matched a fiber from Jason Baldwin's mother, which is called secondary transfer. We've got a fiber from a shirt or a couple of fibers from a shirt found at Echols' house, found, one of them was on, like, the Cub Scout Michael's Cub Scout cap, another one maybe on the shirt, that matched Damien's. Fiber evidence, it's in my opinion, it's better than hair evidence.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (1996)

Without Misskelley, Davis and Fogleman faced asking a jury to order the death penalty for Echols and Baldwin based on this evidence: three fibers found in the homes of the accused that were ‘microscopically similar’ to fibers found on the victims; a woman's claim that, on the night of the murders, she saw Echols walking with a girl near where the bodies were found; statements from two teenage girls who said they'd overheard Echols at a softball field bragging about having committed the murders; the claim of a jailhouse snitch that Baldwin had described killing the boys to him; and a knife that divers pulled from a lake near Baldwin's house that prosecutors said might have been used on the boys.

Full Moon Over West Memphis, Memphis Magazine, March 14, 2011

In upholding Echols’ conviction in 1996, the state Supreme Court noted that two people testified that Echols bragged about the killings; an eyewitness put Echols at the scene; fibers similar to the boys’ clothing were found in Echols’ home; a knife was found in a pond behind Baldwin’s home; Echols had an interest in the occult and told police that he understood the boys had been mutilated before officers had released such details.

Arkansas judge accepts plea deal, frees West Memphis 3, Associated Press, August 19, 2011

"Fiber evidence consisting of two green threads found at the crime scene found later to be microscopically similar to a green size-6 child's T-shirt found in Echols's sister's closet and one red rayon fiber that two state witnesses said was similar to a women's robe found in Baldwin’s trailer home."

Jury finds Echols, Baldwin guilty of capital murder in killing 3 boys, The Commercial Appeal, March 19, 1994

These examples demonstrate that fibers and other physical evidence were indeed presented at trial and used by the prosecution to argue their case. Wikipedia should reflect these specific details rather than generalize inaccurately by stating that "no physical evidence" linked the defendants to the crime. I stand by my assertion that an encyclopedia must present the nuances of evidence as they were introduced during the trial.

Further, I advise you to cease posting misleading edits and erroneous statements. Wikipedia content must be consistent with verifiable facts, and further disruptive behavior on your part will be reported. --MiamiManny (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made no "misleading edits". That only occurred in your fertile imagination.

Your absurd claim of "cherrypicked" sources, that you only had the courage to make in edit summary, is not only without merit, but describes your own choice of some obscure links above (a forum post, a provincial magazine...). Nevertheless, the sources do not support your claim that physical evidence linked the three to the crime.

The sources used in the article, that state in no uncertain terms that no physical evidence connected the three to the crime, are the most mainstream and the most up-to-date sources available.

Of sources you cite above: the first, second, and seventh do not support your claim, they merely note what the SCA wrote in 1996; the third, fourth, sixth and eighth do not support your claim, they merely note what physical evidence was presented at trial in 1994 i.e. what Fogleman claimed.

The fifth is simply you selectively quoting the words of the lead prosecutor for the original trial, John Fogleman. You neglect to include what even Fogleman had to admit, in his next sentence: they can't say that it came from that particular garment to the exclusion of all others. Instead you misquote the source by adding a full stop after the words "better than hair evidence" to give the false impression that is the end of his sentence.

There's two issues here. First, there are six highly reliable mainstream and scholarly sources that each fully support the sentence No physical evidence connected Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley to the crime. Numerous other similar sources saying the same thing are easily available. If you want to argue that they're all wrong, and you are right, you need sources which state explicitly, in the author's voice, that the evidence connected them to the crime. Sources that merely recount what happened at the initial trial and appellate court, but without the author themself making any claim about the evidence, do not refute the mainstream sources.

Second, we use secondary sources. If you do not understand why quoting or misquoting the lead prosecutor at the original trial is not a secondary source on this subject then, frankly, you have no business editing this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your response is rife with arrogance and condescension, but I’ll address your points nonetheless. Let's clarify a few things:

My claim of misleading edits is not imaginary. Your insistence on reintroducing the blanket statement that "no physical evidence connected Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley to the crime" ignores the complexities of the actual trial proceedings. It is not "fertile imagination"—it's a documented fact that fiber evidence was introduced during the trial. Your edit summary to dismiss this was misleading, and your attempts to erase the nuance of what was presented at trial are disingenuous.

You dismiss sources such as The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, CBS News, Memphis Magazine, and others—all of which directly mention the physical evidence presented. These are secondary sources that report on the trial and provide context about the evidence. You are trying to reframe my sources as obscure while pretending that sources repeating the simplified narrative are inherently superior. I provided seven uncontrovertible secondary sources, including mainstream media coverage and a law review article, which detail the physical evidence introduced at trial. The fact remains: fibers, knives, and witness testimonies were presented as evidence. Whether you think this evidence was "conclusive" is one thing, but to ignore that it was presented is either uninformed or intentionally misleading.

Additionally, reporting on the state supreme court decision is not only valid but crucial, as appellate courts, like the state supreme court, serve to interpret and confirm the factual findings of a case. The decision reflects a comprehensive legal perspective on what evidence was relevant, and including reliable reports on that decision adds significant weight to our understanding of the case. It’s also worth noting that you cited book reviews of Echols' book as secondary sources. Such reviews are inherently biased, and using them as authoritative statements about the trial is questionable at best. You might want to pretend that this isn't relevant, but that doesn’t make your view correct.

In conclusion, the article should represent the full scope of what was presented at trial, not just some revisionist so-called "mainstream" conclusions published years later. Your efforts to reintroduce misleading, incomplete statements about the trial, and your dismissive tone here, do not align with Wikipedia's standards for a neutral, well-sourced article. You can continue pretending that fibers and knives weren't presented, but the trial record proves otherwise, and I’ll make sure that Wikipedia reflects the actual facts of the case.

Further, your tone and hostility are uncalled for. If you persist with aggressive behavior and attempts to misrepresent well-sourced content, I will escalate this issue. You've been warned.MiamiManny (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You finished your last post with “I advise you to cease posting misleading edits and erroneous statements. Wikipedia content must be consistent with verifiable facts, and further disruptive behavior on your part will be reported.” Do you now. Before complaining that other editors are “rife with arrogance and condescension”, read this page about hypocrisy and this about reciprocity. If you can only give it out, that’s your problem.

Regarding your entirely fabricated claim that I am pretending that fibers and knives weren't presented [sic]: I’ve said nothing of the sort and I’ll not waste any time discussing something of your own invention. None of the sources cited are a book review – again, making things up will not serve your desire to push your outdated POV which lacks any supporting reliable secondary sources.

As to the main argument of your post: no-one disputes that fibre was the physical evidence presented at the 1994 trial. It is mentioned in the article. Reliable secondary sources, including multiple articles in legal journals, observe that the physical evidence does not connect the three to the crime. None of your sources say otherwise. Not even your forum post. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you’ve doubled down on your assertions. Let's address your points:

1. Acknowledgement of Fiber Evidence: You now concede that the fiber evidence was presented at trial. This directly contradicts your edit, in which you inserted the blanket statement that "no physical evidence connected" the defendants to the crime. It’s important that Wikipedia reflects what happened in court—that fibers were presented and argued as linking the accused to the crime scene, and that this evidence was considered significant by the state supreme court in upholding the conviction.
2. Misrepresentation of Sources: You accuse me of fabricating the claim about your sources being book reviews. While I acknowledge that The Guardian and The New York Times articles are technically not book reviews, they were clearly arranged as part of a publicity tour for Echols' book. This makes them just as biased—if not more—since they serve to promote his perspective without critically examining the prosecution's arguments or the evidence presented during the trial. Using these articles as authoritative sources on the case, when their intent was to support a narrative favorable to Echols, is highly questionable.
3. Reliable Secondary Sources: You keep insisting that my sources are irrelevant or unreliable simply because they reference what happened at trial. In fact, I’ve provided seven secondary sources that include mainstream media coverage and law review analysis—all contemporaneous with the trial or appellate proceedings. Reporting on the state supreme court’s decision is particularly relevant since the court affirms what evidence was deemed admissible and significant. Ignoring these sources in favor of later, revisionist publications distorts the full picture of the trial.
4. The Main Issue: The statement that "no physical evidence connected the three to the crime" misrepresents what occurred in the courtroom. Whether or not you think the fibers were conclusive, they were presented, used as part of the prosecution's argument, and considered significant enough by the state supreme court to uphold the conviction. It is our responsibility to accurately represent both the evidence and the arguments made, not to rewrite history based on a biased, revisionist perspective.

If you truly want to improve the article and maintain Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, then you should support a more nuanced statement that reflects the complexities of the evidence presented. Your current approach only serves to push a false narrative. MiamiManny (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You’re still making things up. We’re still not going to discuss things of your own invention.

1. you claim that You now concede that the fiber evidence was presented at trial. [sic] You made this up. This was never disputed. One cannot “concede” a point that was never in dispute.

2. This makes them just as biased I disagree. They are news articles. Were the context you guessed at correct it would not render the New York Times, the Guardian, the Cornell Law Review, and Encyclopaedia Britannica – which are all in agreement – all unreliable for facts.

3. You keep insisting that my sources are irrelevant or unreliable simply because they reference what happened at trial No. They’re irrelevant because they do not support your claim that physical evidence connected the three to the crime. They just say fibre evidence was presented at the trial and was cited by the SCA. Not the same thing.

4. No re-writing of history nor false narrative is at play here. The text merely reflects what the most mainstream sources say.

Your POV-pushing has no place here. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)