Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:00]
Ali Jackson
If you're a podcast host, listen up. This one's for you. My name is Ali Jackson. I'm the host of Finding Mr. Height, a dating and relationship podcast that I've been doing for four years now, sharing my positive and practical approach to dating that's built on my own life experience. And I wanted to share another experience that I've had, my secret behind monetizing my show. It's called Red Circle. And I was just telling my colleague about how much I love their platform. With Red Circle, not only am I getting a seamless hosting experience, but I also love the support I receive in ad sales. It's not just typical ad sales either. It's targeted opportunities based on my show and my life. And the platform is super simple. You just set your preferences and Red Circle matches you with sponsors that align with your show. You can vet every opportunity and their platform gives you great analytics. More recently too, my Red Circle team has brought me opportunities outside of my podcast on social media to really augment the podcast partnerships. Bring them full circle. I just can't recommend them enough. If you want to give it a try, go to redcircle.com to get your free trial. That's redcircle.com for a free trial.
- [01:00]
Sarah James McLachlan
From the waters of Lake Erie, it was raising flags.
- [01:03]
Brett
He said there's no way that that fish should weigh 7.9 pounds. It's just not big enough.
- [01:10]
Sarah James McLachlan
To a nondescript office building in Richmond, Virginia, home to a 700 million dollar fund for children with special needs.
- [01:17]
Brett
If there was a cliche list of how to blow money that you just stole very quickly, this guy did all of them.
- [01:25]
Sarah James McLachlan
To the ski slopes of Salt Lake City, where a former Olympic snowboarder landed on the FBI's most wanted list.
- [01:32]
Brett
Ryan James wedding is one of those interesting Norcos who have had two very successful careers, one legal and one illegal.
- [01:40]
Sarah James McLachlan
We're pulling back the curtain on a fresh lineup of opportunists who stopped at nothing to get ahead. These are the stories of people who saw a loophole, a moment of weakness, a chance to get ahead, and took it. I'm host Sarah James McLachlan. Join me for a new season of the opportunist on May 19th. Follow now wherever you get your podcasts.
- [02:18]
Brett
I'm Brett.
- [02:20]
Alice
And I'm Alice.
- [02:21]
Brett
And we are the prosecutors. Today on the Prosecutors, we talk alibis in the West Memphis three case. Hello, everybody, and welcome to this episode of the Prosecutors. I'm Brett and I'm joined as always by my like new co host Alice.
- [03:21]
Alice
Brett. Brett. Brett. Okay, you guys have the benefit of an edited, released version of this podcast, but the over a hundred people who stayed on the line with dead air because my podcast equipment went kaput tonight. And I drove across town to Brett's house to get. Oh, not to Brett's house, halfway between our houses to get new equipment so we could record tonight. It is officially 9pm Central Time. The Lord's, you know, time. And we're just now starting, but we're all brand new, so we're gonna see if this only an hour late. But you know what? Like new. Because we were not gonna let another day go by without recording a West Memphis three episode.
- [04:01]
Brett
That's right. And this is just gonna be the best episode ever, because I feel like whenever you have issues like this, that's what's gonna happen. And I gotta tell you, you know, we've been doing West Memphis Three for what seems like forever. We're closing in, guys. We're going to talk about the sort of competing timelines in this case, alibis. And then next week, I think we'll be ready to talk about the most important thing in this case, the Confessions of Jesse Misskelley. And we've wanted. People have been asking, why are you taking so long talking about the confessions? Well, the answer is pretty simple for the people out there who don't know everything about this case already. We thought before we talk about the confessions, it would be good if. If you knew everything about this case. So when we talk about the confessions, hopefully everybody is going in with all the information you need. I think it'll probably take a couple episodes to do the confessions, and then we're going to talk about alternative suspects. And then I think we'll be ready for the last. The last episode for theories. So only a couple more weeks left. Enjoy it while it lasts. I hope you've enjoyed it up to this point. But with that, Alice, I think we've kept people waiting long enough. Are you ready to talk about alibis?
- [05:11]
Alice
Yes, absolutely.
- [05:14]
Brett
So, you know, alibis are an interesting thing because a lot of cases have them, but they're almost never dispositive. You think back to the Adnan Syed case. There were multiple people who offered various different alibis for him, but they all were either weak or they didn't cover the right time period. And there was this gap where he could have committed the crime. And then you see other cases where it seems like the alibis are pretty rock solid. This case is one where people make both arguments. There are people who will tell you the alibis are incredibly weak, almost non existent in this case. And there are other people who tell you they are absolutely rock solid. We're going to go through them and the sort of facts of these alibis and let you decide for yourself whether or not the West Memphis Three have rock solid alibis for the time of the crime. Now, just to remind you, time of the crime is pretty vague. I think you can argue that these crimes happened, we've said between seven and nine. I think there are people who probably would disagree with that and say it's even earlier, maybe 6:30 to, maybe not as late as 9, but a relatively. I don't know, is that a large stretch of time or is that a narrow stretch time? It's not 10 minutes, right. It's not something that narrow. For instance, I think in the Adnan Sad case, it actually was pretty tight. There was a window from when school got out at whatever time, it was like 2:30 to when Adnan was at track practice at 4 where he had to commit that crime. It was pretty narrow window. This is a little bit broader, but still relatively narrow, particularly to kill three boys and cover it up. But before we get into what what the West Memphis Three say they were doing that night, I think it's important to start with one of the more important pieces of evidence in this case, and that's the Hollingsworth sighting. The Hollingsworth sighting is a piece of evidence that a lot of people point to, particularly for Damien Echols and his guilt. And it helps set up sort of a time period that might be helpful. So let's talk about that for first and then we'll get into the individual days of each one of these defendants. So, as I said, one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case is a sighting by members of the Hollingsworth family of Damien and another person on the service road near the crime scene the night of the murders. Sometime after the murders, it's unclear when because no one bothers to date the notes, Narlene Hollingsworth called in with information on various things she said she saw on May 5, including seeing Damien Echols and Domini tear together that night. Sometime after this, on May 9th, Darlene calls again. She said she saw Damien and Domini walking from the area of the Blue Beacon Towards Lakeshore around 9:40pm and that they looked dirty. This will sort of develop into muddy later on, but either way, they were dirty. And for what it's worth, the majority of her tip isn't actually about this, she mentions this in her tip. The majority of it is actually about LG Hollingsworth, who is her nephew and is someone that she thinks might be involved in the crime. So at the time of these calls, it's not really clear that Narlene understood what she had. If she saw Damian and Dominique at that spot at that time, it's incredibly incriminating. And we're going to discuss Damian's story of where he was that day. But spoiler alert, it's not over by the Blue Beacon right after the murders, but the police certainly recognized it. And on May 10, they reached out to Narlene for more of the story.
- [09:04]
Alice
So Narlene told police that she went to pick up Dixie Hufford, where she worked at a laundromat. That night at 9:40, she saw Dominic, her niece, and Damien walking down the service road near the truck wash. As she was driving by, Dominic pointed a stick at her and she said that both of them were muddy.
- [09:25]
Brett
So a couple things, as I said earlier, initially it was dirty. Now they're muddy. The other thing that's interesting about this is Dominic. I don't know if y' all remember my conversation with Domini, but I asked her if she ever changed her name and she said no. But Dominic is what we have from this interview. So I don't know if Narlene got that wrong or if the police got it wrong or some people called her Dominic. But according to Domini, she's always been Dominique. So I don't know, but it's just a weird little thing that happens in this interview.
- [09:55]
Alice
Yeah. And that's really interesting because at first you think, okay, sightings are always faulty, but if this is your niece. But how close are you to your niece if you're calling her a name that she never goes by either. You would think that if you live in the same town, esque and your family, it's hard to mistake someone. But again, all the things you've noted are kind of strange and interesting and things you have to take into account when trying to assess these competing timelines.
- [10:19]
Brett
And Narlene, by the way, if I have this right, Narlene is like Domini's aunt twice. Because if I have this right, and let me just tell you, the Hollingsworth family tree is a little weird, she was married to two of three brothers. So she was married to one brother, and then she married the other brother, and the other brother, I think is Domini's father. So, you know, as she says, she's known Domini since she was a baby. So you would expect she would know who she is.
- [10:52]
Alice
Known her twice as aunts to different uncles. So as we've kind of noted, there are additional reasons to doubt what Narlene has said. So around town, she's known as a busybody and a gossip. And Dixie would tell police that she did have a habit of exaggerating. John Hollingsworth, her brother in law, the.
- [11:13]
Brett
Only Hollingsworth she didn't marry, by the way.
- [11:15]
Alice
I was gonna say, which Hollingsworth is this? So Dominie's father, the only Hollingsworth of the brothers that she has not married, would say that Narlene was only interested in the reward money and anyone listening to her was wasting their time. Now, I have to also note that he knows her as having married one of his brothers, that marriage ended and married another brother. So he may also have a particular view of her that we have to take into account.
- [11:42]
Brett
And Narlene would later say that she married the other brother to get back at the brother that she was leaving.
- [11:46]
Alice
So, yeah, this is not one of those, like, righteous situations where the husband goes off to war, dies, and the brother marries her to take care of her. It's not that situation. Quite the opposite. More of the Maury sort of flavor of the marrying brothers situation. But this is all relevant in terms of how people are viewing because we're getting people's opinions of Narlene and whether she could be trusted. The busybody, the gossip, the being motivated only by reward money. That may be through the lens of, well, you married one of my brothers to get back at the other brother. You know, that is something that can taint your view of her testimony. But we do have the fact that she puts herself seeing the boys earlier that day, which seems unlikely, though not impossible. But putting that aside, Narlene wasn't alone when she saw Damien. In fact, half of her family was with her.
- [12:38]
Brett
If you're watching, I just put the Hollingsworth family tree up on the screen. I don't know if you can see it that well or not, maybe if you're watching on big screen tv, but it's very complicated. So, Dominie, by the way, Domini's mother is Deanne Teer, who is the sister of Dixie Hufford, who was married to the father of the three Hollingsworth brothers. So. And Narlene is married to Ricky Sr, but she was also married to L.G. hollingsworth Senior. So. And then John, I guess, is the brother in law. Anyway, so it's very Complicated. There's a lot going on here. There's a lot of sort of inter connected people in this case. It's just, I don't know, this case is so amazing in so many ways. And the Hollingsworths are just an example of that. So she's going out to pick up Dixie, she sees these folks, right? And she's got all these family members with her. And in her May 10 statement, she says that Tabitha Hollingsworth, her daughter Ricky Hollingsworth, her husband, possibly Little Ricky Hollingsworth, and Mary Hollingsworth were also in the car. So she sees Dominie and Damien and she mentions to her husband that she doesn't like the fact that they're out so late and he told her not to worry about it, that he saw them out walking all the time. Now she will say that she told Dixie Hufford about this as well later on, but Dixie will not confirm this part of her story. So if she did tell her this, she didn't remember it. Narlene will testify that she was in the car with Mary, who was 10, little Ricky who was 13, Tabitha who was 16, her husband and Anthony, who was 21. She also said that a girl named Sombra, who was 11 and was little Ricky's girlfriend, was also in the car with them. So this seems like a lot of people, but I will note they were in a station wagon, the greatest of all vehicles. And so we'll talk about that in a minute. But so as they're driving around in the station wagon, they're approaching the Love's Truck Stop and the Blue Beacon Truck Wash and they see Damien and Domini. Damian's wearing all black. Domini had a pair of pants that had white flowers on them. She would say she thought about stopping for them, but she realized there wasn't room in the car for them. So this is what she says in her testimony. I looked back at my ex husband and he said, where are you going to put them? I said, well, I'll put Mary in Domini's lap. And I looked over and he said, where are you going to put the other one? In Damien's lap. And I looked at Damian and said, no, I don't think so. Which, by the way, these are the kind of things where it could just be that she's a very good storyteller. But this is a little flourish, right, that makes you feel like, okay, this has the air of truth about it that she's giving you this extra piece of information. There's a whole bunch of people in the car who you would think would be able to corroborate this.
- [15:54]
Alice
Right. So there are other people, and they're not like small children. They're teenage and up. Right. So let's start with Big Ricky Hollingsworth, the husband. In his statement to police, he said that he was in his car, which was a 1982 Ford Escort Station wagon. And he says that he was with Narlene driving, who was actually, at this point of trial, awkward. His ex wife, Anthony, Tabitha, Mary and little Ricky were also in the car with the two of them. Now, Big Ricky confirmed that he saw two people who Narlene said were Damien and Domini, though he didn't get a good enough look at them to tell who they were. Note that Ricky has an additional person in the vehicle, though, Anthony, who Narlene also added at trial a couple things about this.
- [16:42]
Brett
Number one, it's amazing that a relationship with such a strong foundation and family connections didn't work out. But it is interesting that, you know, they're divorced. He has no reason if she's lying about all this, like, say she just made all this up for some reason. He has no reason to support her in this. But he's saying, look, I saw two people. She said, that's who it was, whatever, right? So he didn't get a really good look at him, but he's confirming that this whole conversation happened.
- [17:11]
Alice
And one thing to note about the whole not wanting to necessarily lie, not needing to lie, whether they really did see Dominique and Damien at the time. What he is confirming in his testimony is at the time, he is saying Narlene said it was Dominique and Damian. She could have been mistaken at the time. But when you're trying to assess, okay, did she add, Is she adding Anthony now? So is she adding now that it was Dominey and Damian? At least in his testimony, he's saying, I don't know, I didn't really see them. But at that time, not later on, not weeks later, but at the time that we saw them, she's saying it was Dominique and Damien.
- [17:44]
Brett
And the other thing I'll say, just to keep in the back of your mind, the police and the prosecution are going to take the position that it wasn't Dominique, that Narlene apparently did not know Domini that well and got it wrong, that it actually was Jason Baldwin. One thing that I think is interesting, she says Domini had, and you're going to hear this again, that she had these jeans that had flowers on them. I asked Domini about this. Did you ever have any jeans with flowers on them? And you may recall she said no laughing all black all the time. Right? So if it was Dominique, she wasn't wearing jeans with flowers on them. One thing that people speculated is they weren't flowers, they were tears in the jeans. Which could be frankly, either Jason or Dominique. I'm sure they both own jeans with tears in them. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Shifting a little money here, a little there, and hoping it all works out well? With the name your price tool from Progressive, you can be a better budgeter and potentially lower insurance bill too.
- [18:50]
Alice
You tell Progressive what you want to pay for car insurance and they'll help find you options within your budget. Try it today@progressive.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
- [19:04]
Brett
Guys, you know we love true crime and we love talking about it, but the one problem with recording a podcast late at night is when it gets finished. Sleeping is very difficult for me to do. Well, that's where Beam's Dream Powder comes in. Because when it comes to solving the case of your sleepless nights, Dream is a life saver. When I found Dream, everything changed. I started sleeping through the night. I without tossing and turning and I woke up energized, not groggy. It's been a game changer for me and it can be a game changer for you as well.
- [19:41]
Alice
Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients. Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, apigenin and melatonin. It's designed to help you fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up feeling amazing. And unlike other sleep aids, there's no next day grogginess, just great restful sleep. And dream tastes incredible. It's part of my nightly routine. I really love it. It's simple, easy and effective. And my focus and energy comes back. Beam has already improved over 17 and a half million nights of sleep, helping people across the country wake up and feel their best. And for a limited time, Beam's giving our listeners an exclusive offer of up to 40% off their best selling dream powder. That's right, up to 40% off. To finally crack the case of your bad slee, go to shopbeam.com prosecutors and use code prosecutors at checkout. That's shop b e a-m.com prosecutors and use code prosecutors for up to 40% off because better sleep, that's the kind of mystery you can solve not all.
- [20:49]
Brett
Meals are created equal. For instance, breakfast has the spicy egg.
- [20:54]
Alice
McMuffin for a limited time, and lunch does it. McDonald's breakfast. So Tabitha says that she saw Damien and Dominique. Dominique was wearing black pants with holes in the knees. For what it's worth, that seems to be more in line with what Domini typically wears. And she also said that Dominique was wearing a black shirt. She said Damien was wearing all black, and both of them were muddy. Tabitha says that the other people in the car were her mom, Anthony, her father, and she said, quote, just our family. Tabitha testified consistently with her statement to the police.
- [21:37]
Brett
So like Al said, what Tabitha said was consistent with her statement to police, but it's not consistent with the rest of her family. And that is interesting. So you have different people saying sort of different members of the family were in the car at the time, and that includes Anthony Hollingsworth. So Anthony Hollingsworth, who honestly, is kind of sketchy, at some point in the trial, when they're talking to Narlene, they mention that Anthony lives on the property. We can't live in the house. It seems like Anthony probably has some convictions that prevented him from being around children is what I'm going to assume. But in any event, he tells police that he was in the car with Ricky, Tabitha, Mary, Narlene, Sambra, and Little Ricky. So he is consistent with Narlene's later testimony about the number of the people in the car. He says they saw Damien and Domini on the service road. They were wearing black clothes and they were muddy. And this statement is consistent with what he told police. He also provides some helpful notes about where everyone was in the car. So we talked about how they were in a station wagon. And one of the things people talk about is, could you fit all these people in the station wagon? And I feel like. I feel like a lot of y' all missed out in life because you clearly never rode in the station wagon.
- [22:53]
Alice
You clearly never rode station wagon.
- [22:55]
Brett
The rear facing seats in the station wagon, that was the place to be if you were a kid. And Anthony provides the helpful note that most of the kids, Little Ricky, Sombra and Mary, were in the back of the station wagon, just like every other kid in the 80s and 90s. So those three are in the very back Narlene is driving. Big Ricky was in the passenger seat. Anthony and Tabitha were in the back bench seat, which left one seat for Dixie when they picked her up. This is consistent with the discussion that Narlene and her husband had about where they were Going to put Dominy and Damien because they had to have one seat for Dixie, who. If one person sat in somebody's lap and somebody else sat in somebody else's lap, you could, like, you know, stuff them in there somewhere. But obviously they didn't end up doing that. So I do think it is possible that all these people could have been in the car. And I'll also say this. Remember, this is a time before cable. I mean, some people would have had cable, obviously, or a satellite dish, but a lot of people didn't. And this is a relatively poor neighborhood. There were no cell phones, there was no Internet. There wasn't a whole lot to do. So loading the whole family up for like a drive out to the laundromat to pick up your relative sounds like something people would do to me. Like, I don't find this that unusual. So is the family believable? Now, there are inconsistencies in this story. Who exactly was in the car, is one of them? Which family members were present? Some of them forget that Anthony was in the car. Others don't mention Sombra, who is the one person who's not a family member. The exact time they went is also inconsistent, as is when they first spoke to the police. Anthony and Arlene seem to think they went the next day to give a statement, whereas, in fact, it was four days later that Narlene gave a recorded statement to police on May 10, that we know she spoke to them on the 9th as well. And it's possible she spoke to them before that, given the undated notes. But Anthony didn't give a statement until May 25th. So these are some inconsistencies that have led some people to believe this is not a story you can buy.
- [25:06]
Alice
And you can imagine during this time, a lot's going on. And it's possible that they were speaking with each other. And so when you have these conversations over and over, if ultimately you talk to the police, it's possible that these timelines are just jumbled in their heads. Now, there are a couple things about this. First, these inconsistencies, they actually seemed rather minor in the grand scheme of things. If you focus too much on these, you kind of miss the whole central point, which is, did they see two people walking when they were in the car? Whatever time it was, how. Whatever iteration they were sitting and yes, so all of them. There's not a single person in the car who's saying that they saw no one. And that is kind of the central question here, what time it is. Who it was, whatever it is, all these people saw two people walking. So maybe all these people, all these Hollingsworths, made it up so that they could collect the reward. On May 8, Crimestoppers announced a $6,000 reward, which was elevated to $12,000 on May 9. That was reported in local papers. Now, this does coincide with the first dated message we have from Narlene, though it is likely there was an earlier call as well. Would the family have sold out their own relative, Domini, for a triple homicide for only $12,000? Now, granted, this reward did grow over time to I think over $30,000, but that was well after the sightings were reported. Now, of course, there's no limit to people's love of money and what they are willing to do for it. But there are a few problems with this. If there's any evidence other than Narlene's brother in law's statement that the Hollingsworth sought or received a reward, we're not aware of it. And then, of course, there are the practical issues. First, why would they include so many people? Why not just say that there were a couple people in the car? Maybe Narlene and her husband? Maybe Narlene and one kid? Why would you include all of these people who. It's hard to keep your stories straight, even if you're all in on it. The more people you have telling a fake story, the easier it is to have inconsistencies. So what about Dominique? The Hollingsworth never wavered in implicating their own relative, even though the prosecution clearly believed that they had seen Jason and not Domini. But Narlene was adamant over and over, even when investigators were like, are you sure it's not Jason? We think it's Jason. It's really Jason. She could have easily shook, shifted and said, you know what? You're right. I definitely saw Damian, maybe who was with her was not Domini, but rather Jason. But Narlene was adamant. She said she'd known Dominique her whole life and who she saw on that road was Dominique. Now what about Ricky? By the time of the trial, Big Rick, as we know, was divorced from Narlene. Now, would he really continue to lie just so she could get the award? Or would he just say that she was lying? Throw her under the bus. No love lost anyways. Literally no love lost. Right. Why help her continue to get this money? It's not necessarily his money anymore because they're not married. So in fact, as far as we know, the Hollingsworths have never changed Their story, even after all these years and all this attention, their story has stayed consistent.
- [28:27]
Brett
Yeah. And look, I think the Hollingsworth story siding is a real fly in the ointment for people who want to believe the West Memphis three are innocent. And I think a lot of times what you get is a lot of mockery. And we've engaged in some of that as well, frankly. This is a weird group of people. Narlene is wild and crazy. She's. She's obviously a busy body. She's obviously injecting herself into this. She talks about how she saw the boys earlier in the day and she almost ran over them. And I don't believe that. I do think she wasn't telling the truth about that. But then when you get to this part of the story, there are just so many people, you know, and they are relatively consistent. You may recall in my conversation with Domini, I asked her about the reward money. Did you hear about that at the time? And she had no idea at the time. I think that's interesting. Maybe it wasn't as widespread as people normally say. I don't think it's that unusual. They'd all be in the car together. And we have all these things that sort of tie the story together, all these consistencies across the families. And the biggest thing, Alice has put her finger on the fact they never changed the story and said, you know what? It could have been Jason. That's the easy change to make once you realize that's the story you're supposed to be telling. If they're getting their story straight, which they don't actually do, because they have all the different groups of people in the car, that would seem to be the big thing, you know, now that you mention it, did kind of look like him. Oh, I'd not seen a picture of Jason. Oh, yeah, wow.
- [29:51]
Alice
He.
- [29:51]
Brett
He looks just like Dominique. And that's what. That's what the prosecution would say. They were like, you know, we had long hair at the time, etc. Etc. Now, Domini was like a flaming redhead. So I don't know that you would actually mistake them. But nevertheless, what's also interesting, I talked to Domini about this. I asked her, could they have seen you on another day? Is it possible this was. Because that's the thing that makes the most sense. Right. And we're talking about alibis. We're talking about things where you can make this mistake. The thing that makes the most sense is they actually saw him on some other day. This was actually, you know, the next Week. But Domini said they never would have seen him there, that they never walked that way. Like, her position is she was never in that spot where these people say they saw Domini and Damien. And it doesn't actually make sense for it to be Dominique under any sort of telling of this story. Right. I mean, Jesse Misskelley is not going to say that Domini was there. Dominique says she was at home. I mean, her mom's her alibi. But nevertheless, there's never been any indication she was involved. So why would she be there? People would come up with various reasons. Maybe this is well after the crime and Damien took her back to the scene to sort of see what he had done. But that's pure speculation. So I think these are all really interesting points. This is also where I wish, you know, like, if we were doing a documentary and we're investigative reporters, the thing that blows my mind about this case is how many people there are out there who have bits and pieces of the story that it seems like the people who have the resources and the ability have never attempted to talk to. You have all these people who've made documentaries, all these people who've had investigators. Nobody ever talked to Sombra. I called every number I could find for Sombra. I wrote emails to every email address I could find for Sombra. I sent Facebook messages to every Sombra in Arkansas. There's only one.
- [31:43]
Alice
And.
- [31:44]
Brett
And got no response. Because if Sombra is like, oh, yeah, I remember that, like, she didn't testify, obviously. I mean, she was an 11 year old girl, but she's like, oh, yeah, it was weird. That would be huge, right? She's the obvious person to talk to. I also tried to talk to Tabitha. She didn't respond either. Like, I would like to knock on these people's doors and be like, hey, I know this is a Weird question, but 35 years ago, do you remember being in the back of the car when this happened? Now they might say, oh, I don't remember that at all. But I bet you if this happened, they would remember it. But unfortunately, no response. If she does respond, maybe she's listening. I will let you know what she says. But this is a key part of this story and it's something that is damning for Damien if you believe it happened. And I think with that, we can start talking about the alibis as The West Memphis Three have laid them out. So on May 5, Damien had a doctor's appointment. That morning at 12:30, Damien, Michelle and Pam went to the pharmacy to fill a prescription for impriman, which is an antidepressant. At one the family drops Damien off with Jason. At 3:45, Damien calls Pam, his mother and says he was at the Alexander Laundromat on Missouri street with Domini. Jason was mowing his uncle's lawn. She drops Domini off at her home and returns to the Broadway trailer park at 4pm with Damien. This is what Damien says happened by the way. Get to possible problems with later. Sometime between 5:30 and 7 the family drops by the Sanders home and stays for about an hour. After that they went home. This time is important as Damien's sister Michelle as well as the Sanders daughters will put the visit at closer to 7pm when Beverly Hills 90210 was on television. Also random bit of trivia. The final episode of Quantum Leap aired that night and I remember watching that episode. It's kind of wild, you know, this is stupid, but it's wild because I remember because I love Quantum Leap. I remember watching that episode and that was happening on this night, you know, different, different places, different home. But anyways, so you have these two daughters in the Sanders. One is at home, the other one is visiting and across the street neighbor. And she will report seeing the family at the Sanders house. While 90210 was on television. Pam estimated it was a 15 minute drive to the Sanders. And I will read you the description of the episode of Beverly Hills 902.0 that was on that night. It's prom night on Beverly Hills. 902-10-07pm Wpty TV Channel 24. The Kids Classic attire is courtesy of fashion designers Fred Heyman, Donna Karen, Karen Okada, Daquano Magen, Oleg Cassini and Norma Camilla, which I think is. I mean I don't know if that's what they used to do in these. But the fashion designers Fernando two one zero would get a shout out in the episode description. But that's the episode that everybody was watching on May 5th.
- [34:46]
Alice
So now Damien spent the rest of the night on the phone but when he got on the phone is important. So Heather Cleat tells police that she received a call from Holly George and Jennifer bearden on a three way call at around 9pm they stay on the phone for a while and at some point Jennifer Bearden drops off. At around 10pm they call Damien's house. His mother gets on the phone and says she doesn't like girls calling after 10 o'.
- [35:13]
Brett
Clock.
- [35:13]
Alice
Damien got the phone away from her and said to call back which they did around 10:30 and they were able to reach Damien. However, in a 2004 affidavit, Heather admitted that she was not on the phone with Holly George, but instead was on the phone with Jennifer Bearden the whole time. Jennifer was afraid of her parents finding out about her connection to Damien. And Heather didn't particularly like Holly, so she substituted Holly for Jennifer. And in fact, when police talked to Holly, she says she didn't talk to Damien that night at all. Here's how Heather explained the whole situation. This is from the affidavit. My memory was that during at least some of the phone conversation, Jennifer Bearden had been connected by my three way calling system and that she talked to Damien Echols. I used to view Jennifer Bearden as Damien's other girlfriend. I was aware that Damien was going out with Dominique Tear at the time.
- [36:10]
Brett
I hate to belabor this point, but Damien's other girlfriend, Jennifer, she's 12. So there you go.
- [36:18]
Alice
And you can understand why there was the lying at the time. She didn't. She would have gotten in trouble, right? She wasn't supposed to be on the phone. She wasn't supposed to be dating him, probably. So that explanation rings true to me that she substituted in another girl she didn't really like that much, Holly, in place of Jennifer. This is continuing the the affidavit. My memory is that Holly George was not on the three way call that I arranged. I did not really like Holly at that point. And I would have been much more comfortable talking to Jason, Jennifer and Damien. I believe that I told the police that Holly George was with me on the phone with Damien and Jason on the night the three young boys went missing in May of 1993. Not on the phone with Holly that night. The reason that I did not tell the truth to the police was that Jennifer Bearden was my best friend at the time. And she had asked me not to tell the police that she had been on the calls with Jason and Damien. Jennifer told me that she was worried about what her mother would do if she found out that Jennifer's name had come up as being on the calls. So after the police asked me to name who was on the calls, I gave them Holly's name instead of Jennifer's. So when the police interviewed Jennifer, she says that she called Damien around 9:20 or 9:30, but she had to get off the phone because she wasn't supposed to be on the phone after that. Now this is good for Damien as it puts him on the phone at precisely the time The Hollingsworth claimed to have seen him on the service road. But there's a problem. Jennifer is almost certainly lying.
- [37:54]
Brett
So as Jennifer said, she wasn't supposed to be on the phone after 9:30. And just as she wanted Heather to lie about her calling Damien at all, it also seems that she lied about the times. In fact, in a 2004 affidavit in which she mentioned that at the time she attended Ellendale Elementary School, yes, Damien, the 18 year old with a pregnant girlfriend, is on the phone with an elementary student whose best friend considers her to be his other girlfriend.
- [38:22]
Alice
Don't want to belabor the point, but elementary. Elementary.
- [38:27]
Brett
So Jennifer said in this 2004 affidavit that she called after 9 and was told that Damien wasn't home. This is actually pretty important if he wasn't home because he's supposed to be at home this entire time. She called later believing that she talked to Damien from 9:30 to 10. Of course, this was many years later and here's how she explained it in 2004. I understand I told the officers that I called Damien back at around 9:20 or 9:30pm on the night of May 5th. I was not supposed to be on the phone after 9:30pm So I explained that I called him no later than 9:30pm but my belief is that the phone call lasted past 9:30pm I was supposed to be in bed by 10pm I was concerned that if my mother learned that I had been on the phone past 9:30, she would have thought I had not been obeying her or conducting myself as she would have expected. So although it is still possible that Jennifer and Heather called Damien at 9:30, it seems unlikely. So given Heather's detail about his mother answering at 10 and telling them that she didn't like girls calling so late, it seems just as likely, if not more likely, that the call happened much later at 10 or after 10. And if the call did happen at 10, then this part of Damien's alibi is largely busted. And it probably won't surprise you that the girls were not called as alibi witnesses for Damien. Damien, you know, they all had these appointed lawyers, but I think they were pretty good and I think they saw this as this is going to be weak. These girls are going to crack. If they're on the stand, they're going to tell the truth. It's going to end up being bad for Damien. Better not to call him. We're going to see later on some alibi witnesses who get called and do crack and it is a huge problem for one of these defendants. So in short, according to Damien's mother, the time through the morning to 6:30 or 7:00pm is filled. But there's a gap between sometime after 7 and about 10:00'. Clock. Now, if Damien's sister is right and if some of these phone calls happened a little bit earlier, then the gap of time does narrow considerably and possibly exonerates Damien all together.
- [40:43]
Alice
So this is a classic example of what we say, that people lie, witnesses lie for reasons other than to for the ultimate target suspect, defendant in this case, Jennifer, which makes sense because she's 12, she goes to an elementary school, she has a bedtime at 10 o', clock, she has rules, she could get grounded. There are consequences for being on the phone after 9:30. That, that is at the top of her mind to be able to essentially lie and create this potential alibi for one of the suspects of a triple homicide. She's not necessarily lying for that reason. She's lying, as she's now saying in 2004, because she's thinking about herself. And we've said this many times before, that witnesses lie for a variety of reasons and it's usually self centered rather than part of some big conspiracy or necessarily even to create an alibi for someone else. But when they lie, it creates a lot of problems for trying to understand what really happened. Now, Domini tear tells a slightly different story. Dominique said that she and Damian went to Jason's uncle to watch him mow grass at 4 o'. Clock. They then went to the laundromat where they were picked up at 5:30. Can I say, you know, there are all those like memes, like this TV show can't happen. You know, if there were cell phones, this is what you did back then, before you had the Internet, before you had social media or scrolling or streaming of TV, you watched whatever was on TV 90210 at the time that it came on TV. And if you had nothing better to do, you literally went to go watch your friends mow the grass. Right. You and I grew up in the 80s and 90s. Yes. This is completely consistent with like how we grew up. You didn't scroll social media. I think this is actually probably better, but this is what she's saying. So they are watching Jason Mograss At 4 o', clock, they go to the laundromat and they're picked up at 5:30. She says that she was then dropped off between 5:45 and 6pm all in all, this is not that significant. A change. Dominique has Damien calling her some time after 10 o'.
- [42:40]
Brett
Clock.
- [42:41]
Alice
Now, one interesting thing. Domini said that she hadn't seen Jesse in quite some time. But after the murders, he started showing up. In one instance, he came over to Jason's and asked Damien to go to Blockbuster with him. Why is unclear. So take that for what you will. In any event, Narlene Hollingsworth says she saw Damien coming out of the woods at around 9:30pm Damien lived two miles from the crime scene. So the times match well.
- [43:12]
Brett
So I think one thing we can say and actually think this is pretty incontrovertible, frankly, on the back end of the timeline, Damien doesn't have an alibi. So the later part, after 9, going into 10, really until about 10 o', clock, Damien doesn't have an alibi that you can count on. But that's not really the most important part of his alibi. The most important part of his alibi is earlier. And that's where 90210 comes in. And so it's worth spending more time on this Beverly Hills question. And this is gonna get really complicated, so just buckle up. So, first of all, let's start with one critical part of the story that no one ever mentions. Pam, who is Damien's mother, says that when they went to visit this family, when 90210 was on, her husband went with her as well. This Visit occurred on May 5th. Death, which, given what we think we know, doesn't make much sense because Joe had moved out the day before, finishing his moving out sometime that night previously. So while it's not impossible that they've gotten back together within 24 hours, you do have to believe, assuming that she's right about the date, and we've been through this before, that it would be unusual for Joe to be there. So if it's true that her husband was with her, then the strip either happened earlier or later, but probably not on that day. And he probably is with her, as everyone, including the neutral witnesses, say he was there. Now, it's possible everyone got the date wrong. Is there any evidence of that? So Pam says that they talked to the daughter, Jennifer Sanders, for a while because neither Randy nor Susan Sanders was home by the time they arrived at the Sanders residence. They had used someone's gold card to go to Splash Casino, which was this new casino that had opened up, I think, right across the border, but maybe it's in Arkansas, either way, and it was sort of a big deal, and people were going to visit and someone they knew had this gold card, which I think got them in, got them some perks or whatever. Now this is a little weird because the only reason they even went to the Sanders in the first place was because they had invited them to come see them. But, you know, maybe they thought they weren't coming. For some reason, people were less connected. They decided to go to the casino. In any event, Pam says that Damien was with them and Michelle agrees. This is kind of like the Hollingsworths. What else you gonna do? Let's all pile in the car and go see the Sanders. And this was something they did pretty often. Joe couldn't actually remember if Damien had gone or not, which I think is interesting, but he's not very helpful on this point. Then they went home and Damien would talk to Jennifer Bearden on the phone. So from their perspective, they're over at the Sanders, they go home, Damien is home. Now, remember you have that phone call where it said he's not there, but nevertheless he's there with them. He never leaves the house. He ends up talking to Jennifer Bearden. And that covers this entire period when he would otherwise be committing this crime.
- [46:02]
Alice
So, as we've already mentioned, Jennifer Sanders, who was 11 at the time, was interviewed by the police. She said that on a Wednesday in May, all four of the members of the Echols family came over to her house and stayed for 20 or 30 minutes. She said that they arrived around 7 o', clock, sat down to watch 90210 and they left around 7:30. Jennifer remembered it was a night her parents were at Splash and the night before her boyfriend had a band concert. Stacy Sanders, who's 17 and Jennifer's sister, said that she remembered it was the first Wednesday in the month. She remembered this because it was a special episode of 90210, one of the last of the season. For the record, the third to last episode of the third season of 90210 aired that Wednesday night and it was titled A Night to Remember. And here's the description. The students of West Beverly are horrified to learn that the school board has pushed through a measure that will bar any student found drunk at the prom from graduation. Everyone scrambles for dates and the Walsh twins find themselves dateless. Meanwhile, Mel Silver serves champagne at a pre prom gathering, leaving waif like Donna vulnerable to its effects. According to Stacy, she believed the family left around 7:15. Stacy would say that the Hutchinsons came over to the house, quote all the time. Now the reason she thought they were there on May 5 was because it was the first time her parents went to Splash.
- [47:35]
Brett
So this seems pretty good, right? There's a lot of sort of corroborating details. You have 90210 is on the television. You've got the families going to Splash. It's the first time, if she remembers, it's right before her boyfriend's band concert. Seems like it's all locked down. But when you look at it more closely, there are several problems with this story. So the gold card the Sanders would have used was Donald DeWitt's. But DeWitt used his gold card to go to Splash Casino that night. He only had one guest with him. And we know DeWitt was at the casino that night because he signed a receipt for dinner. Donald told police that if the Sanders had been with him, he would have put three guests on the sign in sheet, not two. And in fact the two was crossed out and a one was put in its place. Donald explained that the guests would have been his wife, Rose, Susan Sanders and Randy Sanders. In fact, on May 9, only a few days later, Don was back at the casino with his card. And this time he did list three guests. He listed two guests on the 14th, indicating that he certainly didn't just put down the same number of guests every time. So did the Sanders actually go on the 5th? Was Stacy just confused? There is one piece of evidence that seems to support Stacy's story. The DeWitt dinner receipt from that night of the 5th listed 3, crossed out and replaced with 4, indicating there were 4 people eating dinner. So what's going on here? Okay, so it's true that the 3 to 11 shift indicates that DeWitt arrived with one guest. But the dinner receipt is from the 11 to 4am shift. So it's possible that DeWitt went to the casino twice that night, once with his wife and once with three other people, possibly including the Sanders. Or it's possible the Sanders met him at the casino later. So he shows up with one guest, his wife, they end up coming later. It's not notated on the record because they showed up later, they then have dinner. But if that's what happened, it's not documented in the signing sheet and also doesn't really help Damien that much because it's so late in the night. If the Sanders went back with Mr. DeWitt later on, then perhaps the signing sheet is inaccurate. But either way they would have been home and seen the Hutchinson's if they had come over when 90210 was going on.
- [50:02]
Alice
And there are kind of more issues here too because there's that band concert. Remember Jennifer Sanders said she Knew it was May 5th because it was the night before her boyfriend's big band concert. Well, when the prosecution crossed Jennifer on this at trial, they made very sure to confirm that memory anchor. And for good reason. The prosecution called the band director to the stand. And the big band concert, the one that Jennifer said happened the night and at a venue next to the hospital, it didn't happen when she thought it did. It happened on May 17, not May 6. So there's one other piece of evidence used to support the fifth. Gail Sharpe won $10,000 on a $20 bet. But the problem with this evidence is once again, Gail only remembers it happened on the 5th because she remembered seeing Susan that night.
- [50:52]
Brett
Night.
- [50:53]
Alice
She doesn't have any independent recollection of the date. The first time she thought about it in relation to the date was when the defense team called her and suggested that she file a tax report on her winnings in February of 1994. And here's how this went down at trial. Davidson. Okay, and those you do recall that date of May 5th of 1993. Gail says, uh huh, I sure do, because Susan come up to me and said, you're the one that won this. I said, I sure am. Davidson, who were the Sanders? Were they with another couple that night? Sharp. There was, I don't know who they was. Davidson. But did you see them with another couple? Sharp. Uh huh. So the question still remains, does she actually remember the date or does she believe it was the fifth because that's the day the Sanders were supposedly there. She certainly filed it on her taxes as happening on May 5, but. But whether that's when it happened or not is really hard to say. And based on the testimony that I just read to you, you can see that it's not exactly clear that she remembers May 5th. She's anchoring it to seeing Susan.
- [52:03]
Brett
And this is the problem with alibis, right? So you have these people who are trying to remember, but you have this situation where people's memories are being influenced by other people. So she believes it's the fifth because that's the day that she saw the Sanders. But if the Sanders weren't there on the 5th, then she saw him a different day and now only believes it's the fifth because that's when the Sanders think they were there. You see the issue and the tax thing, the defense uses that, and you should read this because it's a fascinating example of neither side really wanting to ask too many questions because the Defense doesn't want to ask too many questions because they don't want her to remember it's not the fifth. Fifth. And the prosecution doesn't want to ask too many questions because they think it's unclear enough that it was a fifth that they don't want to nail it down too much. So none of them ask the questions you would really like to hear. And you couldn't just think of so many better ways to examine this witness, but no one does, you know, no one asked her, for instance. Oh, you filed it on the fifth. Well, did you have any documentation that said it happened on the 5th or did you just do that because the defense called you and said, hey, you were at the casino on the fifth and won $10,000? Right. I mean, why is the defense saying that to her? Probably because they've talked to the Sanders, and the Sanders remember her being there, and they remember her winning $10,000 and they think it happened on the 5th. But where is the information coming from? Is it coming from their actual memories or is it being implanted there by the questions by the investigators who want them to remember? Same thing with 90210. The next episode of 90210 was also a really important episode. Near the end of the season. It's after Donna got drunk whether or not she's going to be banned from graduating or not. So are the girls remembering the right episode? And so in the end, you have evidence supporting sort of either interpretation for this pro or con for Damien's alibi. And one question, though, I think you have to ask yourself is, does it matter? So the alibi is only important if it accounts for Damien in the 7 o' clock hour when the boys were likely murdered. Now, if they were murdered earlier than that, Damien's probably clear. But if they were murdered in the 7 o' clock hour, and I think most people think they were, then that's when it has to cover. The problem for this is if it doesn't, then all we have are Damien's mom's assurances that he didn't leave the house again that night. And that's frankly, unlikely. Even if Damien isn't the murderer, because he was always on the move, he was always walking, he was always in the neighborhood. He didn't just sit around in the house, not talking to girls, not talking to Jason, not walking the streets. None of that seems likely. So what time was his trip to the Sanders? Now, the first time Damien speaks to the police, he says that he went to the Sanders between 3 and 5pm, Pam Hutchinson, Damien's mother, said that they went to the Sanders household between 5:30 and 6, according to the book Blood of Innocence and her transcript of her May statements say 6:30 or 6. By September, the time has shifted to 7, which puts her more in line with Michelle's statements and some of the supporting statements from the Sanders girls. The shift of time is so obvious that the prosecution actually asked Damien about it during cross examination when he testified at trial. And after going through the various times, you have the following exchange, which is striking for its candor from Damien. The question as time moves on and the time period that is in question becomes later that evening, the visit to the Sanders becomes later that evening, correct? Yes, sir. So the story kind of changes to fit the facts we need to cover, right? Yes, sir. And Damien, if you've seen Paradise Lost, he will say that there's. The lawyers are kind of questioning about this because they're like, so why did you say that? And he basically says, yeah, I just kind of zoned out, I wasn't paying attention. And they were like, well, zoning out, not paying attention may end up, you know, getting you the death penalty. Because, I mean, it's as if he's just admitting, yeah, we move the time around. Once we realized it had to be seven, that was what time it was. And the jury certainly heard that.
- [56:02]
Alice
So given this admission from Damien and also given the fallibility of human memory, Damien's alibi, it's just simply not enough to exclude him definitively as a suspect in the murders. It's possible, if not likely, this visit happened on another Wednesday, possibly the next week, when 90210 was on once again and the storyline of the prom and drinking and its consequences carried on. So you can imagine why there would be thought of, well, yeah, there was a problem because the storyline is continuing here, it's possible that the girls are just misremembering what they were watching that night and that Damien was over at their house on the 9th or the 16th, but not the 5th. Or maybe he was there but much earlier or leaving just as 90210 was beginning. In any event, relying on this alibi is an act of faith, not a cold, calculated decision based on evidence. But does it matter? It appears that best case for Damien, he is back home by 7:30. Damien lived a little less than two miles from the crime scene, which is about a 30 minute walk. This would put Damien at the crime scene by 8 o'. Clock. This is probably the furthest possible limit that still allows Damien to murder the boys and really just barely. Although it didn't get dark until 8:30 or so, this would have been prime mosquito time. The boys probably needed to be be dead by 8 o' clock as they had no mosquito bites on them. So the boys probably needed to be dead by eight as they had no bites on them. Of course, if you shift the time the family got home to be more like 7 o', clock, suddenly the timing works out perfectly. Because the boys are killed in that seven o' clock hour. The murderers spend some time cleaning up and perhaps are still doing so. When Ryan enters the woods at 9 o' clock and hears, remember those splashes? They exit through the service roadside and Damien is seen by the Hollingsworths Sometime after 9:30, arriving home in time to talk to the girls at 10 o'. Clock. So you see how his alibi, all it takes is about a 30 minute shift and it could completely not work or barely work for him to be the murderer. Or it could actually line up with all the other sightings that we have and the calls and the times that we think are there.
- [58:27]
Brett
Okay, so that's Damien. Let's talk about Jason. Guys, have you heard about One Skin's Scalp Serum OS1 Hair? People are raving about it. I've been using it since they launched a few months ago and I'm already obsessed. If you're familiar with One Skin, you know about their patented OS1 peptide and how it's scientifically proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's what powers their skin and sun care. Now it's targeting age related hair loss and thinning. Listen to this. People are sending interviews like my hair has never felt this thick and full and my scalp feels healthier than ever. And I started three months ago and I'm seeing new little hairs on my scalp line. One customer even wrote, I have tried everything for hair growth and finally I'm getting a response from my hair. And it's not just talk. One skin scientist did a clinical study showing that after six months months participants had significant thicker and denser hair. If you're Ready to give OS1 hair a try, you can get 50 off your first month supply with code prosecutors@OneSkin.
- [59:34]
Alice
CO1Skin was founded in 2016 by an all woman team of scientists with PhDs in skin regeneration, stem cell biology, immunology and bioinformatics. For the past few months I've been using their face cream and especially with summer being out in the sun, putting on sunscreen, my skin doesn't know if it's dry, if it's oily. But One Skin has brought its natural elements out and the anti aging peptides are really working. They developed the OS1 peptide, the first ingredient to reverse skin's biological age by reducing the accumulation of senescent cells, a key driver of skin aging. One Skin is the world's first first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, One Skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code prosecutorsoneskin co. That's 15% off oneskin co with code Prosecutors. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we homes.com knows when it comes to home shopping, it's never just about the house or condo. It's about the and what makes a home is more than just the house or property. It's the location and neighborhood. If you have kids, it's also schools, nearby, parks and transportation options. That's why homes.com goes above and beyond to bring home shoppers the in depth information they need to find the right home.
- [61:02]
Brett
And when I say in depth, I'm talking deep. Each listing features comprehensive information about the neighborhood, complete with a video guide. They also have details about local schools with test scores, state rankings and student to teacher ratio. They even have an agent directory with the sales history of each agent. So when it comes to finding a home, not just a house, this is everything you need to know, all in1place.homes.com We've done your homework. Jason spent the day at school, which was confirmed at 4:30. He arrived at his uncle's Henry Bartouche, where he mowed the lawn. He left at 6:30 and said he was going to Walmart to play video games. So no one ever questions Jason's grass cutting alibi because it's basically irrelevant. Although there were multiple people who said Jason cut his uncle's grass, the times come from Harry Bartouche's statement to police. But Bartouche was actually under the impression at the time that the boys are murdered at 4 o'. Clock. And one kind of wonders that the Alibi's timing had as much to do with protecting Jason as anything else. But whatever the case, the grass cutting doesn't help Jason much. If he met up with Damien in the woods at 7 o' clock or so and murdered the boys. So what about Walmart? So at this point it seems Jason was at Walmart playing video games. But when and with whom is impossible to pin down. Multiple people would confirm that Jason was at Walmart at some point that day, but none of them seem to agree on when. The best support for Jason comes from Ken Watkins. Ken says that Damien, Dominique Jason and he went to Walmart to play video games. Now this is interesting because he's throwing Damien in there as well, which doesn't really seem to make sense, but let's just go with it. He says they ran into LG Hollingsworth, of all people, and went in the store to avoid him. Now, one interesting thing about this is once again going back to when I talked to Domini. I asked her about this incident. She said it never happened. This was not something that would happen. She knew LG he was her cousin and this didn't happen. So already Ken's story is seeming like it's unlikely. But he says at about 5:30 he left to go babysitting while everyone else stayed at Walmart. At about 7, he went to Jason's house and Domini, Damien and Jason were all there playing Nintendo. And the Ken didn't leave till about 10. And this is an amazing alibi, not only for Jason, but Damien as well. And it's far better than the 90210 visit story, though it conflicts with it. So you might wonder why Ken never testified.
- [63:34]
Alice
Yes, you would wonder, wouldn't you? So Ken gave this statement on September 16, 1993, four months after the murders. But the time between the events is not his main problem. After this statement was completed, Ken, like many witnesses in this investigation, took a polygraph test and he failed it. In fact, his test was indicative of deception on the significant questions about the murders. After the polygraph, Ken said that on Friday, May 7, Damien told him that he was there in the woods with two others when the boys were killed. At this point, the police started a new interview with Ken. Ken said that on that Thursday he was at Damien's waiting for Jason to arrive. While there, Ken heard about the three boys being killed. When it came up, Damien was quiet. It two hours later, the police showed up for the first interview we are all familiar with now. Subsequently, Jason came by and the two of them went into another room to talk. Ken walked into the room and that's when Damien and Jason stopped talking.
- [64:42]
Brett
So the next day, Ken says he was walking with Damien and Damien told him he knew who killed the kids because he was there with a couple of other people. Damien told him that he thought if he did something drastic, people would stop picking on him him. Ken then told the police that in reality, when he went over to Jason's that night, the only person there was his mother's boyfriend. Ken hung out for two hours, but never saw Damien or Jason. At this point, Ken was given another polygraph, and this time, no deception was indicated. When he said that Damien told him he was there. But when he said Damien didn't tell him who killed the boys, deception was indicated. Following this, Ken refused to speak further with police or to testify. Guy. He eventually recanted his story about Damien, and he would tell private investigator Ron Lacks, who comes back into the story, that the police browbeat him into saying that Eccles confessed to him. This is another person who Ron Lacks talked to him before. They had had incriminating evidence, and now they're saying either it didn't happen or the police coerced them or whatever. Either way, Ken becomes basically worthless as a witness. Another person would be great to talk to. I mean, it seems like he may just be a teller of tall tales because he's doing that one way or the other, but he does not seem that helpful. Now, for what it's worth, Jason's brother Matthew would say that Jason was home the day of the murders, and in fact, Ken was there as well. Whatever the case, Jason's attorney would later say that he put no alibi witnesses on the stand because Jason didn't really have an alibi that would stand up to cross examination.
- [66:18]
Alice
And that's coming from Jason's own attorney. Okay, let's move on to Jesse's day. So in some ways, Jesse's alibi is the most important. The strongest evidence against the West Memphis three is Jesse's confession. If Jesse wasn't there, obviously, all that falls away. So what did Jesse do that day? Jesse was working that day, finishing up his job at Woodlawn roofing at around 1:30pm Jesse hangs out with his girlfriend until about 5:30pm when he tells a friend, Josh Darby, that he's going home. At some point, Jesse leaves home to go to Stephanie Dollar's house. According to Stephanie and other witnesses, Jesse is there when Stephanie Dollar calls the police because a neighbor slapped her son. The problem is the police were at the trailer park. Often they'd been there at the same time the night before. So it's worth wondering whether Jesse was even there at all. And in fact, the officers who responded, they were very familiar with Jesse. They were adamant that Jesse was not there the night of the murders. To be specific, the officers were adamant that Jesse was not at Stephanie Dollars the night of the murders. Now just assume for a moment that Jesse was in fact at Stephanie Dollars when the police were called. Called. The Police arrive at 6:30pm Jesse leaves. Stephanie tells police that Jesse was going to Dyess, Arkansas to wrestle. Jesse's girlfriend Suzy Brewer also said that Jesse was going to Dyess and had his mask leaving around 7:10pm but interestingly, Jesse did not initially tell police that he went wrestling. He told them he didn't do anything that night. He said he just went home. So did Jesse go to Dyess or not?
- [68:10]
Brett
I just want to reiterate this is wrestling. So you know and for those of you who don't know, there's a difference between wrestling and wrestling. Jesse's not going to do Greco Roman wrestling in the hopes that one day he can compete in the Olympics. Jesse's got a mask, I guess he's a luchador. He wants to be on wwe, wwf, whatever. That's what he's going to do. He's training to be be a professional wrestler. So that is Jesse's alibi though as Alice says it is a later developed alibi. Initially when he talks to police, his story is he just went home that night. So maybe he remembered later or maybe he made it up, it's hard to say. But the police are going to investigate this. On June 9th, Detective Allen conducts his investigation of the wrestling story. Allen interviews Charles Austin, who is owner of Austin Station and Grocery in Dyess, Arkansas. Near his store is a building that hosts wrestling matches. Dyess, by the way, is about 45 miles north of West Memphis. Austin is asked if he remembers Jesse Misskeli being at the wrestling area on May 5. He says he does not and that he would have remembered him as there wasn't a lot of activity in the area on work days. He said that he did not see him on either a Thursday or a Friday either. He noted that he closed up up around 8pm Alan then interviews G.W. stone who is the man who runs the wrestling facility. Stone tells them that he drew up a contract on May 5 for some boys who wanted to wrestle at his facility. The contract released him of any liability should they get hurt. And he Knew it was May 5th because he deposited some money a boy named James Revelle paid him on May 6 as a down payment on the purchase of a wrestling ring. Jesse Misskelley's name is on the contract. Stone believed that this group had arrived at around 7pm Though he couldn't say for sure as time didn't mean much to him and he never wore A watch.
- [70:07]
Alice
At the same time, Detective Bill Durham is interviewing James Ravel. Now, Ravel tells Durham that he picked Jesse up around 7 or 7:30 to go to Dyess, which would put them there no earlier than 7:45. They dropped Jesse back off at his house at 11pm at trial, Fred Revelle testifies. And by the way, James was his wrestling name. That's a Choice. He remembered May 5th because Kevin Johnson, who would wrestle with him, had search and rescue training that night and could not go. It was also the only night that Keith Johnson came with them. Now, the Johnson brothers are interesting and often get glossed over in this whole discussion. Keith Johnson testified that one day his brother called and asked if he wanted to go to wrestling school. He said yes and hung out for a while at the Exxon station until he was picked up by a group of people, including Jesse Misskelley. This was the only time Keith went to Dyess. But there was a problem. Keith had no idea what day this was. So Kevin was called to testify.
- [71:12]
Brett
So Kevin lived next door to Jesse. And on May 5, Kevin was supposed to go wrestling, but instead he went to a search and rescue meeting. So Dan Stidham, who is Jesse's attorney, in his closing, he makes good use of this testimony. And I'll tell you what he says he remembers that night. He testified that he remembers that night. He told you that he was supposed to go wrestling with his brother. He invited his brother, Keith Johnson, to go that night. But he went to a search and rescue meeting. And at that search and rescue meeting, he heard about the boys missing. He didn't know whether they were gonna have to go out and look that night. Night he didn't go wrestling. Keith Johnson only went wrestling that one night. And that's the night that his brother was at the search and rescue meeting. This, if true, is powerful. But there's a problem. Neither brother's testimony is as clear as Dan Stidham, a good lawyer, makes it sound. In his closing argument. When asked if he spoke to his brother on May 5, Johnson only said, I believe it was that day. He'd been doing search and rescue meetings since January. And the prosecution on cross of both brothers and use this fact to undermine the connection to the fifth. But there was one fact that could have tied all this together for Jesse. $300.
- [72:27]
Alice
So Fred Revelle testified that they picked Keith up at the old Exxon station. This is good as it fits with Keith's story. And Jesse was with them and it was getting dark and Fred said that this was the only night Keith was ever with them again. Very good. And how did Fred remember the night that this happened was May 5th, because that was the night he paid $300 and signed a contract for the ring, an event that Jesse was present for. So this seems like a fantastic alibi. But on cross examination, the prosecution showed Ravel the receipt for the payment. G.W. stone got the date wrong. It was not May 5, it was a week before April 27. The thing Fred was using to anchor to the date of May 5, the contract didn't happen that day. To make matters worse, he also said in a statement that the time hadn't changed yet. The problem is the time had changed by May 5. This contract was devastating to Jesse. Another witness, Roger Jones, testified that Jesse was with them, but he also tied the date to this contract. Given that Jesse often went wrestling 20 or more times a month, apparently without the contract date to tie things down, Jesse's alibi lost most of its potency.
- [73:44]
Brett
And you can see how this is bad. And we talked about this earlier, you know, the problem with calling an alibi witness is if everything gets undermined, it makes your client look even worse. And I think that happened here. You know, maybe the Johnson's are right. Maybe it did happen on the fifth. The fact of the matter is that the date comes almost exclusively from the contract. And, and we even in the testimony, Ravel talks about how he called G.W. stone because he's trying to remember, remember. He's trying to remember, when did this happen? And G.W. stone's giving him back the contract in May 5th. And so when he talks to the police, he's like the contract in May 5th. And even though he's consistent that it happened on May 5th, it doesn't really matter. And Jesse's alibi falls away. And unfortunately for the West Memphis three, none of them really have a solid definitive alibi. You can sort of argue either side, and there are people who think that it's close enough. There are enough people saying Jesse went wrestling. There are enough people saying that Damien is over at the Sanders. Jason doesn't really have much of one, but if the other two do, it's fine. But I don't know if that's the conclusion you can, you can draw or not. At best, the stories we have kind of confirmed whatever your final belief is in this case. If you think the West Memphis three are innocent, you probably think their alibis are sufficient. If you don't think they are innocent, then the alibis aren't going to change. Your mind. But I will say this. The fact the alibis aren't more concrete is a problem unto itself. We aren't talking about one person here, we're talking about three. And it seems like if they were innocent, at least one of them would have a solid alibi for the specific time of the murders. Remember, we have alibis for part of the rest of the day for these folks. It's just this critical time where things get difficult. They'd be at work, work or in the movies with a girlfriend, smoking pot with some friends or out of town. But none of these three have an alibi that can be confirmed. And as I said, what's interesting is this also isn't a situation where they have no idea what they did that day. All three have solid alibis for the times we don't care about. It's only for the times of the murders that things get hazy.
- [75:53]
Alice
And that's a really interesting point to note here because oftentimes you'll hear people who are in the wrongfully convicted camp saying, we know what they were doing that day. You're right, we do at certain times. But again, when you hone in, as we have on the specific timelines, it just gets really hazy. It's messy, as many alibis are, by the way, at the times that actually matter. So don't be misled by people who are like, we know exactly what happened. We do. There are certain points earlier in the day and maybe later in the day, times that don't really matter for purposes of the murder, being able to commit the murder order that we do know.
- [76:28]
Brett
So, like so many things in this case, it feels like the alibis are largely awash. They don't really do much for you and they don't really prove much. I am interested to hear what you guys think. If you think these alibis are more solid than what we've presented. Once again, it doesn't mean they're guilty. It just means we don't have alibis that can conclusively rule them out. If you have thoughts, shoot us an email@secutespodmail.com prosecutors pod for all your social media. If you want to watch these episodes early and ad free, join Patreon. If you are only a member of Patreon for this episode, we've been recording at this point for almost three hours. It has been a trip. We've had a lot of technical difficulties. There are still 143 people here. So hats off to you guys because y' all are the ultimate and somehow.
- [77:16]
Alice
Somehow we've added people who are listening.
- [77:18]
Brett
We have.
- [77:18]
Alice
Did you get like some sort of memo that was like, guys, come on over.
- [77:24]
Brett
Yeah. I'm not sure what brings you guys here, but I'm glad to have you and if you want to be a part of that, join Patreon. We are going to go ahead and wrap this up because we are hanging by a shoestring on this episode. But I think this is an important one. I hope you've enjoyed it. I hope you learned something. Let us know what you think next week. As I said, hopefully with far fewer issues. We are going to discuss Jesse Misskeli's confession and this is going to be big episode. Going to talk about it. What's consistent? What's not consistent? Can it be believed? Is it worth the tape it's recorded on or not? We hope you'll join us for that. But until then, I'm Brett.
- [78:06]
Alice
And I'm Alice.
- [78:07]
Brett
And we are the prosecutors. 107 people, crazy people who've been waiting the last hour just, just plugging in and everything. We'll see what course. Yeah, but some, some weird's going on. Good luck Jason with that one.
- [80:06]
Alice
Jason. Sorry man.
- [80:10]
Brett
So I guess.
- [80:11]
Alice
Oh my.
- [80:11]
Brett
Go ahead and send me parts. I did 17.1 and 2 or upload them.
- [80:16]
Alice
I did 1, 2 and 3. They're already uploaded and I'll send him.
- [80:21]
Brett
So sorry.
- [80:21]
Alice
This is Sam.
- [81:07]
Brett
This summer Pluto TV is exploding with thousands of free movies. Summer of cinema is here. Feel the explosive action all summer long with movies like Gladiator, Mission Impossible, Beverly Hills Cop, Good Burger and Transformers Dark of the Moon. Bring the action with you and stream for free from all your favorite devices. Pluto TV stream now pay never.