Loading summary
Transcript135 lines
- [00:02]
Alice
Hi, I'm Jesse Perry. And I'm Andy Cassette. Welcome to Love Murder, where we unravel the darkest tales of romance turned deadly. Our episodes are long form, narrative driven and deeply researched. Perfect for the true crime aficionados seeking stories beyond the headlines. Like the chilling case of Blanche Taylor Moore, the so called black widow who left a trail of poisoned lovers. Or the shocking murders of Chad Shelton and Dwayne Johnson, where family ties masked a sin sinister plot. Subscribe to Love Murder on Apple podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen.
- [00:46]
Brett
I'm Brett.
- [00:47]
Alice
And I'm Alice.
- [00:49]
Brett
And we are the prosecutors. On the Prosecutors, we give our theories 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 Locked in co host, Alice.
- [01:48]
Alice
I'm locked in, Brett.
- [01:50]
Brett
Locked in.
- [01:50]
Alice
20 million episodes in. I am locked into this case. I'm locked into this podcast. You know, I still kind of thought this was just a passing phase. And here we are locked in on episode 1085 of West Memphis 3.
- [02:03]
Brett
And I just want to say thank you to all of you who've gone through this entire process with us. I hope you've enjoyed it as much as we have. And welcome to those of you who listen to the podcast for the first time. For this, I hope you'll stick around. We're going to have a lot of fun in the future.
- [02:16]
Alice
I guess we will. Because for those of you if you haven't, I think our sarcasm, despite us specifically explaining our jokes, the podcast is not ending. I mean, it might based on what we say tonight, maybe you guys will decide, forget them. But that's okay. Okay. As we've said about all of our cases, we've spent years researching this. We have spent hundreds of hours, it feels like at this point, recording this. Obviously we're invested. You're invested. With all that said, we've tried to present the evidence to you, point out where lore does not match up with actual evidence. And whatever we talk about today, how we come out on this case, you don't have to agree. But if you don't agree, get out. I'm just kidding. But you don't have to agree, so don't take it personally. But also know that we are coming at this with, for me, absolutely no preconceived notions coming into this case. I knew very minimally about this case. I've learned this case for years now with all of you. And we have all sat with the evidence together and you're getting A real life view into how our brains are thinking about this. Because I don't know, I don't think we've really like that much tipped our hand. Not that there was a hand to tip. That's the point. There hasn't been a hand to tip the entire series. So here we go.
- [03:35]
Brett
Here we go. And I might have had a few preconceived notions coming in, but I'll discuss those later so we can talk about those then. And as Alice was saying, lore, just off the top of the episode, I do want to give a little correction to something we've been talking about over the last 24 episodes, and that's DNA testing on the genes. You may recall, this was something we focused on, something we talked about in Jesse Muskelley's Bible confession. He talks about Damien Echols masturbating and ejaculating onto a pair of jeans, using a pair of jeans to sort of wipe himself off. And we talked about how in the trial there was some testimony that indicated that there was a test on those pair of jeans which were presumptively positive for semen. And this was a big deal because obviously that's something that, that would confirm Jesse Misskelley's confession in a big way and also provide a possible avenue to determine who did this. Because with modern testing, you would think you could make that determination that you couldn't make in 1993. And what we have read in discussions about this and everything else is that these genes had never been tested. But we didn't expect to find this. We had a FOIA request in Arkansas for DNA results. Specifically, we were looking for the 2011 ones. Well, Arkansas sent us what they had. They don't have the 2011 ones, but they sent us DNA results from the 2000s. So 2007, 2008. And in those documents, wouldn't you know, there was a report about DNA tests done by Bode Laboratories on those same genes. And according to that test, there was no semen located, no DNA consistent with sperm. There were epithelial DNA cells that were not consistent with any of the West Memphis three. Now, why is this significant? Number one, you could say, well, there's some unknown DNA there. Who knows, that might be important. But to me, it was more important because it seems to undermine Jesse's confession on one point, because you don't have the evidence you would expect to see. And on the other point, it sort of opens a new mystery to me because it's not clear to me why this is not more. Well, Known. So I don't know the answer to that. If you want to look at this, maybe there are people out there who knew all about this and they're like, of course, you idiots. I would have sent it to you if only I knew you wanted it. You can, you can take a look at these yourselves if you go to prosecutors podcast.com we put all the files up there and we took a little snapshot of this particular test so you can see what we're talking about. Very interesting. Look at it yourself. But I think one thing we can say for certain is it is not true that those genes were never tested subsequently.
- [06:23]
Alice
And it's also the case that that DNA test was not known at trial in terms of what Jesse may have heard. Because this is relevant. Right? We've been trying to analyze where Jesse's confessions came from, if they were true or if they contained information that was false and consistent. He sat through an entire trial. This information was not available at the time of his trial. So he would not have known this piece of information.
- [06:47]
Brett
Yeah, he would have walked out of that trial thinking there's, I mean, assuming he was listening, he would have walked out thinking, hey, there's a possibility there's semen on those genes. And if you think that what he's doing is using information he learned from the trial and adding it into the Bible confession, which came after the trial, and then you have subsequently this test which says, no, that was wrong, that's really interesting. And I think it's something that, you know, you have to consider when you're thinking about Jesse's confessions and you're thinking about this case. Okay. With that correction, I think we should talk about theories. And obviously we're going to start with generalized theories about the case possibilities, different ways you could go with this. And then we will get into our theories just like we always do and, and buckle up. This could be a while.
- [07:36]
Alice
There's a long one. There's a long one. This case has been around for a long time. A lot of people have weighed in on it. And so there are a lot of theories to go through. So remember, those of you who are joining us for the first time, these are not our theories yet. These are theories that are out there that could potentially be one of our theories. But let's dive in. So let's look at the timeline. We know that numerous people see the boys alive in the 6 o' clock hour. It seems likely that the boys are still alive at 6:30 with one person reporting seeing them at 7:00 clock. The sun sets at 7:49pm and it's fully dark by 8:30pm so let's dive into the theories. Someone killed the boys somewhere else. Now this is a fringe theory, but it's that the boys were killed elsewhere and the woods were only a dumping location. There are essentially two variations on this boys were killed somewhere else theory. The first is that a trucker found the boys in the woods and brought them back to his truck. Remember, the truck stop is very close abuts to the Robin Hood Hills where the trucker murders them in the truck. That's where all the blood is, that's where all the evidence DNA is in the truck he drives away. We never find that truck. We don't find all that blood. He goes back into the woods, dumps them, leaves. We have no idea who he is. Another niche theory is that the boys were killed in a number of drainage tunnels running through the area, several of which had entered in and around the Robin Hood hills. Now this is the so called manhole theory and it posits that the boys were killed in these tunnels and then moved to the dump site after they were dead. Notably, Terry Hobbs mentioned in our interview with him that people were looking in the draining pipes because kids did play in there. And Diana Holcomb mentioned that Damien Echols was known to go in those tunnels.
- [09:27]
Brett
So what are some things in favor of this argument? First of all, as we've said, there's very little visible blood on the scene. And it's hard to believe that the killer could so effectively have cleaned up. The area of the murder is also rather open and in fact visible from the Mayfair apartments. And so to think that whoever did this spent enough time in the area to do this kind of cleanup, given how small the area is and how open it is, it just seems unlikely. And in fact, that led the police to speculate at the very beginning that it was possible this wasn't the murder site. But that's basically it. In favor of this theory against it. Other than the absence of evidence at the scene, there's not much to support the theory. First, it would mean that whoever did this not only covered up the murder, but transported three boys, dead bodies, to this relatively open area of the woods just to dump them in this drainage ditch. Now why would he do this? Assume for a second that he's familiar enough with the area to think that someone might search the tunnels. But if that's true, he would also know someone would search the woods and he would know that these creeks he's putting the kids in these little ditches. They're often dry. It was sort of a fluke that they were full of water at the time. So it's not going to permanently conceal the boys to put them there. So if they're going to be found anyway, why take the incredibly dangerous step of moving them? The more likely story is the boys were seen going into the woods and they were killed by someone who found them there.
- [11:04]
Alice
So another theory then is that an unknown subject killed the boys right there in the woods. So someone other than the West Memphis three or the standard suspects did this. Maybe someone from the Mayfair Apartments, maybe L.G. hollingsworth, maybe Richard Cummings. If the West Memphis Three didn't do this, then of course essentially anyone could be responsible. So let's start with a very popular theory early. John Mark Byers killed the boys. What do we have here? John Mark Byers was kind of a strange guy, he was kind of weird. He was a petty criminal and he was allegedly abusive. He was the favored suspect when the innocence claims began for the West Memphis three, though now few believe he is responsible. Now the biggest strike against John Mark Byers killing the boys is the simple fact that there is no time for him to have done it. John Mark Byers arrived back home with Ryan Clark and Melissa Byers between 6 and 6:30 that night. It's possible that the boys were already dead by then, though certainly no earlier than this. The three of them drove around the neighborhood looking for Chris. This is confirmed by the Garner family. And they spoke to Ryan around 7:30 as the family was actively looking for Chris. Now the Garners only knew Ryan was with Melissa, but Melissa and Ryan confirm that John Mark Byers was with them. By 7:30pm John Mark Byers is talking to a police officer about the boys who tells him to call the police at 8 o' clock if they still haven't found the boys. So at 8 o' clock, John Mark Myers is calling the Sheriff's department who directs him to the West Memphis Police Department. At 8:09 Officer Meek receives the the call.
- [12:45]
Brett
So if the boys are still alive till at least 6:30 and probably later, when exactly did John Mark Byers find them, kill them, cover it up and get back to his house to create this alibi. There just doesn't seem to be any viable time when the boys were alive and Byers has the opportunity and time that is not accounted for now, people often focus on the rest of John Mark Byers night contradictions. When he talks about going into the woods and Leaving the woods and what he's wearing. Does he have a flashlight? Does he not have a flashlight? All of this stuff. But there's really no reason to think that's all that significant. It's hard to believe that after about 8:30 it really even matters what he was doing. The boys had been murdered by then and John Mark Byers couldn't have killed them.
- [13:30]
Alice
So another person that has been a popular theory is that Terry Hobbs killed the boys. The idea one of the stepfathers killed the boys is attractive in many ways because it's the most ordinary, it's the most normal, the most Occam's Razor to have one of the parents be the killer. When it becomes more and more obvious that John Mark Byers wasn't responsible, Terry Hobbs was the obvious secondary suspect. Web sleuths and documentarians have spun a lurid tale of Terry Hobbs in an elaborate homosexual tryst interrupted by the boys, resulting in their murder. Now this has evolved to a quartet of murders. Buddy Lucas, L.G. hollingsworth, Terry Hobbs and his friend David Jacoby. This is just the sort of salacious story that's almost certainly false. If Terry killed the boys, the much more likely story is one of simple rage. If Terry did it, he was angry that the boys weren't home, all of them were supposed to be home. And he goes out, he's angry they are not listening. He's a disciplinarian, he said so himself. And he goes out to look for the boys and he finds them in the woods. Maybe the boys were already nude, sexually experimenting in the same way that witnesses suggested they had before. Terry finds them doing this, flies off handle into a rage, beats the boys, not intending to kill them, but not stopping until it was too late. He then realizes he's gone too far. The boys are essentially beaten to death. So then he hides the bodies and then he gets out. Most of the wounds were simply animal predation.
- [15:08]
Brett
Okay, so what are some facts supporting this theory? As Alice said, the first one, and maybe the biggest one, is Occam's Razor. In some ways, this is the simplest explanation. Statistics tell us that most children are killed by family members and Terry is frankly the only one left. We haven't talked much about the Moore family because the dad in that family, he was gone. He was a trucker. He wasn't even in town. He didn't get home until the next morning. So he didn't do it. And if John Mark Byers didn't do it, then you're sort of left with Terry Hobbs. And obviously, unless you buy the sort of wild, I mean, right up there with satanic panic type explanation that in fact it wasn't three killers, it was four killers and some sort of elaborate tryst gone wrong. If you don't buy that, then you have one person, which also is more statistically likely. And of everyone in the case, except maybe Jason Baldwin, Terry has the foggiest timeline of anyone. Now, look, a lot of this, as we've talked about before, isn't really his fault. The police messed up. He wasn't interviewed till 15 years later after the murders. And yet people still hold his incorrect times against him as if they were intentional lies. But whoever is to blame, it's a simple fact that we don't really know specifically where Terry was during much of the afternoon. There's at least some physical evidence. There's this hair that may or may not belong to Terry and belongs to him or 1 1/2% of the population. Now, look, as we said in a previous episode, it's not particularly strong physical evidence, but it's more than we have for the West Memphis Three.
- [16:47]
Alice
So what are the facts against Terry having killed the boys? Other than that hair that could easily be transfer and might not even belong to Terry at all, there's really no reason to think that Terry is involved in this crime. As we discussed in our Alternative Suspects episode, the timeline for Terry is also exceedingly tight, maybe impossible. The vilification of Terry Hobbs was a means to an end, just like that of John Mark Byers. It helped get the West Memphis Three out of prison. And that was all that mattered to those who were willing to engage in it. So could Terry be involved? Sure. But there's really not much evidence to make you think he is.
- [17:25]
Brett
And one thing I would point out, and people talk about the hair a lot. All three of the boys were at his house that day. Like, if you remember Stevie, he's there, obviously Michael Moore comes over to get him. At one point. Chris Byers is over there watching Muppet Babies. Like all those kids are in that house. So, I mean, you see the hair and you initially think, wow, this could be something. But then you remember transfer is just such a possibility. Particularly when you just have this one single hair. Now, maybe they're doing DNA testing now, who knows? Maybe suddenly there'll be a treasure trove of evidence we'll just have to see. But where we stand right now, there's just not a lot to point to Terry Hopps.
- [18:05]
Alice
So what if the West Memphis Three killed the boys? If The West Memphis three killed the boys. The story of how and why is actually much simpler than the sensational tales that spread through West Memphis after the murders. Damian Echols might have been strange, mentally unstable and increasingly violent. And he may have dabbled in alternative religions, and maybe he was even an honest to goodness devil worshipper, Satanist. But this was not a ritualistic killing. There were no sacrifices that were made, there were no candles that were lit, there was no blood drained.
- [18:40]
Brett
The reality is much simpler. Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jesse Mischelley, if they're involved in this, they were victims. Victims of broken families, of domestic violence, of untreated mental illness and intellectual disabilities. If there's a stepfather who is a villain in this story, it's that of Damien Eckle's stepfather, who abused Damien and his sister. Jason Baldwin's only prior serious act of violence was when he took a small baseball bat to his mother's boyfriend to defend her from his abuse. And Jesse Miskelly lived a life of instability and violence from a young age. All these boys lashed out at some point and Damien and Jason wrote about feeling rage build up inside of them and they talked about exploding with it. Damian told medical professionals that the only thing he could do in these situations was to hurt someone. And briefly, I want to take you guys on a little bit of a digression because one thing that I have heard multiple times is you can't believe that teenagers could be responsible for a crime like this, number one. And number two, that Jason Baldwin just doesn't seem like the kind of person who could do this. So I want to tell you about Mark duke who was 16 years old, and Michael Samra who was 19 years old. So Mark Duke back in 1997 asked his father, Remember he's 16 years old, he asked his father if he could borrow the truck. He wanted to go see the movie Scream. His father said no. At this point, Mark Duke called his best friend, Michael Samra. Samra comes over to the house and Duke says, I'm tired of this, I'm sick of him. I'm putting an end to this. I'm gonna kill my father. Tells his best friend this. His best friend goes along with him. He goes, he gets his father's gun. He walks into the living room where his father is, he shoots him. Once his father falls to the ground, he tells him he'll see him in hell and he shoots him again in the head. At this point, his father's live in girlfriend starts to run with her three year old daughter who Mark knew very well, obviously because they lived with him. He shot at her several times. He hit her once in the jaw. At this point the gun jammed. It was no longer usable. She runs upstairs with her daughter. Mark and Michael Samra go into the kitchen. They grab two kitchen knives. They, they go up the stairs. They find her in the bathroom with her three year old daughter. She's trying to call the police. They go into the bathroom. Mark kills her with a knife and kills the three year old. @ this point, they go looking for the six year old. The six year old is found in her room, hiding under her bed. Mark pulls her out from under her bed. She is begging him not to do this. She's saying, mark, please don't. He holds her down while Michael Samra cuts her throat. They then go to see scream. They come back to the house, pretend to find the bodies, call the police. This eventually falls apart. Now, Mark Duke had all sorts of issues. He'd had lots of run ins with the police. He had had prior acts of violence. He was someone who. This wouldn't surprise you. Michael Samra, on the other hand, was older, but he was also a good student. He'd never had any problems with the police. He'd never had any violence, he'd never had any run ins with anyone. He was the last person you would expect to do this. But at trial it was testified to that Michael Samra was under Mark Duke's control and influence. And eventually both of them were sentenced to death. I know this because Michael Samra was the first death penalty case that I handled. I argued this case in the 11th Circuit, I handled it up through the Supreme Court. And he was eventually executed. Mark Duke is still in prison for the rest of his life. He was originally sentenced to death, but his death sentence was commuted following the Supreme Court's decision that you could not execute someone who was younger than 18 at the time of their crime. It is one of the most brutal, violent, horrible crimes I've ever seen. And after dealing with that crime and seeing what these people did, in particular what Michael Samra did, I will never have a problem believing that anyone could do a horrible, terrible thing. So I agree with you. Jason Baldwin does not seem like the kind of person who could do this. He didn't seem like it in the West Memphis three trilogy, Paradise Lost, he doesn't seem like it now. But my experience is in the right circumstance with the right person in control, he absolutely could. So having said that, setting that scene, let's talk about the West Memphis Three. If they did this. What happened?
- [23:22]
Alice
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket.
- [23:40]
Brett
Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Look guys, data brokers make a profit off your data. Your data is a commodity and anyone on the web can buy your private details. This can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts, and harassment. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. So what do these data brokers do? Your name, contact info, Social Security number, home address, even information about your family members could all be compiled by data brokers and sold online.
- [24:32]
Alice
So Brett and I have very active online presences because of this podcast. But privacy is really important to us, especially because of our jobs and because we have young children. We can see that people are able to get our information online. They can dox us, they can harass us, and boy do they. Now we have Delete Me to help take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners today. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting prosecutors to 64,000. The only way to get 20% off is to text prosecutors to 64000. That's prosecutors to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. We spend so much time caring for the skin on our face, but what about our neck? And with summer in full swing, your neck and chest are more exposed than ever. I know for me, I am out in the sun every single day because I love being by the pool. I'm rocking sund swimsuits, strappy tops, and my neck is just out there for the world to see. It's one of the first places to show signs of aging. That's why GoPure Beauty created their revolutionary Tighten and Lift neck cream, perfect for your summer skincare routine. It's powered by clinically proven active ingredients, and this advanced formula is designed to visibly firm, smooth, and rejuvenate the delicate skin on your neck and chest in as little as four to eight weeks. And here's the thing. The skin on your neck is thinner, more delicate and less oily than the skin on your face, which means it needs some extra love, especially in this sun and heat. Gopure's firming complex targets the unique concerns of the neck while nourishing and strengthening your skin for a more lifted, youthful look. I've been using it and even in this blazing sun, I can see the difference that it's making on my neck. For a limited time, our listeners get 25% off GoPure with code prosecutors at checkout. Get the summer glow you deserve with Gopure because all Gopure products are cruelty free, paraben free and sulfate free. So you know you're giving your skin clean, effective care without the harsh chemicals or compromises.
- [26:38]
Brett
With over 1 million jars sold, this beauty secret is no longer a secret. For a limited time, our listeners get 25% off GoPure with code prosecutors at checkout. Just head to gopurebeauty.com, use code prosecutors and you're all set. And after you do buy, do us a favor. When they ask you where you heard about Gopure, tell them it was from our show. If you work as a manufacturing facilities engineer, installing a new piece of equipment can be as complex as the machinery itself. From prep work to alignment and testing, it's your team's job to put it all together. That's why it's good to have Grainger on your side. With industrial grade products and next day delivery, Grainger helps ensure you have everything you need close at hand through every step of the installation. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. So on May 5, 1993, things are coming to a head. The day before, we'll assume Damien's father had moved out of the house once again. According to his mother, Damien was shattered that day. Damien would have entered the woods angry and under the influence of alcohol and possibly drugs. Meanwhile, Jesse Misskelley was drinking the better part of a bottle of whiskey. They're in the woods. They sat brooding, angry, getting drunker, when three innocent boys appear. None of them meant for this to be a murder. Damien was just angry. He just wanted to hurt someone, anyone. And so he did. Michael Moore ran and Jesse chased him. He grabbed him and beat him until he was unconscious. Meanwhile, about 30ft away, all of Damien and Jason's pain and anger poured out of them into Chris and Stevie. Maybe they stomped and kicked. Maybe they picked up logs and branches. But when they were done, the boys were beaten to the point that they would not survive. Jesse wanted to run, and Jason didn't know what to do. But Damien, he was smart. He knew they needed time to get away, to form alibis. So they stripped the boys of their clothes and bound them with shoelaces to make them more compact and less likely to get away. And then they put them in the water. But the boys were still alive. And they weren't dead. They would have floated because they still had air in their lungs. So the teenagers pushed them down into the mud. Stevie and Michael struggled a bit, but Chris, who was barely alive, did not. They left them there in the water, and then they ran. Jesse went back to his trailer park, but he was so distraught by what he'd seen that he smashed a bottle against an underpass wall. Meanwhile, Damian, so exuberant over what he'd done and his new status as the boogeyman of West Memphis, couldn't keep his mouth shut, telling various people about the murders. In this scenario, there are no mysterious third parties, no vengeful stepfathers, and yes, no satanic cult sacrificing children. Just three disturbed, broken teenagers, almost children themselves, who did something terrible.
- [29:41]
Alice
So what do we have in the form of evidence that's in favor of their guilt? First, Jesse's confessions. We spent many episodes on these. There are a lot of confessions. And although Jesse gets some things wrong, he also gets some critical things right. He nails the injuries to Stevie Branch's face and Chris Byers genitalia. He's correct about these injuries and who received them, even though it had been publicly reported that all the boys had been mutilated. He explains why Michael Moore was found so far away from the other boys. And he explains the strange injury to Stevie Branch's penis. And although his first confession is vague and halting, indicative of someone trying to minimize their own involvement. As Jesse becomes more willing to talk in later confessions, the details are filled in and the description of what would have happened in those woods becomes more believable. Kim Floresca seems to confirm that Jesse told her the same story before he even went to the police, adding to it seeming veracity. Now, Damian's penchant for violence is another piece of evidence in favor of guilt. We know that Damien was a violent, unstable person. He had attacked others, and he reported that when he was angry, the only thing he could do to relieve the tension was to hurt another person. His father leaving the home the day before the murders had been exceedingly difficult for him. And his mother reported that he'd cried. As a result, Damien seems like the kind of person who could beat a child to death based on his extensive violent record and mental instability.
- [31:20]
Brett
Let's talk about the Hollingsworth sighting. So the Hollingsworths put Damien near the scene of the crime on the night of the murder, although they report seeing him with Domini. This could be a mistake due to the time of night and the brief amount of time which they were seen. And the fact that Jason Baldwin bore a resemblance to Domini at the time. The fact that they never changed their story to implicate Jason, even after the police made clear that that was their preferred outcome, bolsters their credibility. And the attacks on their story are kind of weak. If the Hollingsworths were in it for the reward money, why not change their story about Domini and Jason? Why did Narlene's ex husband not expose her? Why include so many people in the car? And on that last point, some have suggested that the vehicle they were driving didn't have seats in the rear portion of the vehicle, which would mean the children wouldn't have had seat belts. While unimaginable. Now, I want you to hearken back to 1993. I personally spent 1993 in the back of a pickup truck. When I was younger, I would ride on the center console in the front seat of a Delta 88. We did not even have a seat belt. These kids would have been in the back regardless. And the other possibility, though, that I want you to consider is that they are lying about that part, that there were no kids, but for a different reason. They'd left them home with Anthony, who, because of his own criminal conduct, couldn't be around children. If there is a lie about the people in the car, this is a much more likely explanation as it does nothing for the story of the siding to add some kids to the back part of the vehicle. But it would protect Anthony from potentially getting in trouble. Let's talk about the splashes. Then there are the splashes in the water reported by Ryan, Chris's brother. The timing of these splashes seems to line up with the Hollingsworth siding. Ryan is hearing splashes just about 9 o'. Clock. If the cleanup is finishing then, then it makes sense that Damien would be about where Narlene saw him at 9:30.
- [33:09]
Alice
Another piece of evidence, the lack of alibis. As we discussed at length, the alibis of the West Memphis Three are weak for the actual period of the murders. They seem to know where they were at all. Points that day, except the critical time when the murders happened. In their own words, Damien was overheard by several girls bragging about the murders. Multiple witnesses said that Damien had confessed to them, though they all recanted or refused to testify after a visit from Ron Lacks. Jesse himself, boy, does he have a lot of words about this that can be used against him. He confessed multiple times and his father's live in girlfriend reported that he was extremely upset in the time period after the killings. Although Michael Carson's account is suspect, he nevertheless did testify that Jason told him about the murders and his involvement. So arguably all three suspects confessed at some point, some multiple times to this crime. Then there are the knots. People argue about how many knots there are in this case. Are there three variations of the same knot? Two types of knots? Three types of knots. Because of the similarity in the styles, a double half hitch, after all, is really just a half hitch done twice. This is a debate that isn't likely to end. But more striking than the knots themselves is the manner in which they were tied. One boy, all knots exactly the same. Another boy, half hitches on one side of the body and square knots on the other side. The third boy has a number of double half hitches as well as flourishes in the tying, extra loops and a bow tie in one binding. This smacks of multiple people tying the bindings.
- [34:55]
Brett
So those are some pieces of evidence in support of guilt. But there are two sides to every story. And so let's look at the evidence against guilt and let's start where we started before with Jesse's confessions. There are a lot of them and all of them get major things wrong. The first confession has major issues, the time of day and the brown rope being the biggest ones. Although confessors often minimize their involvement, neither of these errors serve an obvious purpose. Jesse's later claim that he was just trying to trip up the police doesn't really make sense at all. Although you might be able to explain away the brown rope as Jesse being gone by the time the boys were tied up. That doesn't work for the time of day that morning and around noon. Pretty hard to confuse with dusk and sunset. And yet Jesse seems to do just that. The Bible confession, it's better. But still, Jesse's locations seem off in many instances in ways you'd think he'd get right now. Granted, he says he was very drunk that night and alcohol covers many sins. But still, it's hard to feel comfortable with Jesse's statements. Then there are the injuries. The fact Jesse is able to Describe the boy's injuries is always pointed to as the biggest support for the validity of his confessions. But the animal predation theory cannot be dismissed. And it seems that some, if not all of these so called stabbing injuries were made by animals. Stevie Branch's facial injuries were likely from crawfish or other predators, not a knife, as Jesse said. Chris Byers unusual injury to his penis is more easily described as a degloving wound from an animal attack than it is as an intentional attack by a person. Even if that wound can be ascribed to a person, it's clear that Dr. Peretti was completely wrong in his assessment at trial. Whatever can be said about this case, one thing is for certain. No one took a knife in the middle of the dark woods and surgically removed the skin of the penis. It just didn't happen. And anyone who wants to stand by this injury as caused by a person must explain how a person could have caused it.
- [37:24]
Alice
So this is a huge problem. Without the injuries, then, Jesse's confession has almost nothing to validate it. There's the location of Michael Moore, which is significant, but that's basically it. So can that one strong supporting fact overcome the number of errors in Jesse's confessions? Then we have Damian's penchant for violence. Yes, we've talked about how Damian was violent, but he wasn't randomly, so he seemed to lash out at peers. His attack on Shane Divelbus was motivated by jealousy of a girlfriend, an ex girlfriend. Other acts of violence were against similarly aged people. Frankly, it's Jesse who was way more likely to attack children. Though even then he always had a reason to do so. Of course, the fact that Damien was willing to harm others and rumors about his attacks on animals could escalate to an attack on children. And child murderers have to start somewhere. There's usually a victim one. But there's no evidence that Damien attacked kids before this. Then there's the Hollingsworth sighting. The Hollingsworths probably saw Damien. That actually wouldn't be surprising at all. Damien, by his own admission and by everyone who knew him, said that he walked all the time. But did the Hollingsworths see Damien that night? First they also reported seeing Domini. Narlene knew Domini. She'd known her since Domini was a baby. She activated the bright lights on her car when she saw them, so she. You would think there's enough light for her to actually see that. It's Dominique. She also had a conversation with her husband about Domini. It just seems like the Hollingsworth saw Domini. And if it was Domini, how does that fit in with the crime? Then there's the time Damien and Dominique were seen on the Service Road at 9:30pm Assume it was Jason and not Domini. Surely Damian and Jason didn't spend that long cleaning up the scene. Remember, for the killers to have been leaving the scene of the crime at 9:30, the murder itself would either have needed to happen much later than we thought or the COVID up took forever. So if the boys were killed at say, 7:30pm, that's a two hour cleanup. Even if they were murdered at 8:30, far later than I think anyone really imagines, that would mean the killer spent an entire hour at the scene of the crime. Given how exposed the scene was and that people were already looking for the boys. Remember, at that point, the police were already getting calls about the boys and were responding to the calls. This just doesn't seem possible. The sighting by the Hollingsworths, as powerful as it could be, is simply too late to make any sense for this crime.
- [40:06]
Brett
Then there are the splashes. Sure, if the splashes Chris's brother Ryan heard were the murderers disposing of evidence, the timing is perfect. But there are reasons to think Ryan wasn't hearing that at all. We don't actually know where Ryan was. And although he mentions being near a bridge and he could mean the pipe bridge, there were other bridges farther to the east in the woods. And Ryan didn't enter the woods that night near the pipe bridge. His other buddies were over by that landmark. After the splashes, Ryan, who was much further to the east, actually ran out of the woods and then to the pipe bridge to look for his friends. It would make sense that he was not near the pipe bridge when he did this. Although it's possible that Ryan had sort of drifted to the west. I mean, he's in the woods at night, so you can't say that he didn't to the area of the pipe ridge and then simply retraced his steps and sort of ended up back where he began. That feels like a stretch, and it's certainly not something that we can just assume. And the fact of the matter is his friends, who we know were close to the pipe bridge, they didn't hear the splashes, even though they were right there. And so it seems like as compelling as the splashes seem to be, at first they are likely unrelated.
- [41:28]
Alice
Then there's the lack of alibis. Although it can be argued that the boys don't have an alibi that does require discounting a large number of people. First, Damien. Multiple people recalled seeing Damien during an episode of 90210. The Sanders daughters knew this was a memorable late season episode that happened while their parents were at the Splash Casino. Now, we know the parents were definitely a Splash at some point, and we know the person they'd go to the casino with was there on May 5. But perhaps more importantly, there were two significant episodes of 90210 at the end of that Prom night and Donna Martin graduates. The first One ran on May 5th and the second on May 12th. It's certainly possible that this visit happened on May 12th. The fact that Damian's father was with them makes this more likely. And Donna Martin graduates is perhaps the most memorable episode ever of 90210. But the combination of the splash trip probably makes it more likely that this Visit happened on May 5. But even if it didn't, the bigger problem is Jesse. From the beginning, Jesse said he went home that night. The wrestling alibi only came about later, and the people who knew Jesse were desperate to find an alibi for him, undercutting their credibility. But while the wrestling alibi, if true, is the perfect alibi, it's not clear we need perfect to clear Jesse. In every story Jesse told from beginning to end, his confessions and his denials, there's one claim that remains. He was at Stephanie Dollars for the infamous slap. And if that is true, then the murders must have happened at the latest possible time. But this deals another blow to Jesse's confession. If the murders happened that late, then the boys were already in the woods at the time the West Memphis three arrived at Robin Hood. Jesse has consistently described being in the woods first, and this is necessary for an important the bikes. If the West Memphis three were in the woods when the boys arrived, and then it's possible that they saw them come in on their bikes and knew that they needed to dispose of the bikes when they left. But if they showed up after and found the boys in the woods, then how did they know about the bikes? Remember, the bikes weren't with the boys at the drainage ditch. They were back at the pipe bridge, and they were dumped from the bridge into the canal. Now, that means the killer either entered across the pipe bridge and saw the bikes, or someone in the woods would have seen the boys enter with the bikes, lay them down, and thus they knew they needed to get rid of the bikes. If, on the other hand, the killers entered from the blue beacon side after the boys were already deep in Robin Hood, there's no obvious way they would have known about those bikes.
- [44:24]
Brett
Then there's the West Memphis Three's own words. Yes, each of the West Memphis Three are purported to have made incriminating statements, but importantly, all these statements are suspect. Michael Carson's claims about what Jason Baldwin said seem utterly unbelievable. The witnesses who claimed Damien confessed all recanted and refused to testify. Kim Floresca, although giving incredibly damning statements to the press, was never called as a witness. The softball girls may very well be credible, but Damien was such an attention seeking edgelord that he may very well have said that he killed the boys. And almost certainly he did say that, but did so only to burnish his own reputation rather than as a true admission of guilt. And of course, Jesse's confession has the problems discussed above. Then there are the knots. Sure the knots look like they would be made by multiple people, but not tying on three boys you just murdered is not going to be the easiest, calmest or most methodical thing you've ever done. Every boy is different. The amount of slack is not uniform. Every shoestring is different. One of the strings was cut in half. It's probably not surprising that each knot and each style of binding reflects the particular exigencies of the moment rather than a uniform style.
- [45:46]
Alice
So here are some things in general that are troubling the lack of any real forensic evidence in this case, including one that we just saw in the FOIA request. So this was a vicious murder up close and personal. It was a beating. A vicious beating. And yet there's no forensics tying the three to the murders. Yes, there are some fibers and they are stronger than people sometimes say. But there's no fingerprints, there's no DNA. And it is true, of course that there's often less forensic evidence than people expect at a crime scene, especially one that's so messy and in the outdoors and having been submerged in water. But it is strange that they're still so little in this case against anyone. It makes you think the police did a shoddy job on the scene, regardless of how effective the cleanup by the killer or killers may have been. The other thing that is just generally troubling is how late the boys were out. Stevie was supposed to be home by 4:30, well before dark. Chris, who had already gotten in trouble that same day, was supposed to go to dinner with his parents. Michael was probably the least supervised of the three. But still there were sightings of the boys going into the woods as late as 7 o'. Clock. Why were the boys out so late why did Michael tell one of his friends that he was in a hurry?
- [47:07]
Brett
Then there's everything about Aaron Hutchinson's story. Yes, Gitchell and Ridge did a horrific job interviewing Aaron. Their sloppy and leading tactics essentially ruined him as a witness forever. And yet there are things he says that are so striking and curious. Is it possible that the boys had gone into the woods before and spied on adults doing things that would have been incredibly embarrassing in West Memphis at the time? Could they have gotten caught that day? Unfortunately, because of how the police handled this interview, these are probably things we'll never know. Then there's Mr. Bojangles. Okay, logic says that Mr. Bojangles was probably just high. He's a high one. Armed man slumped in a woman's bathroom covered in blood and mud probably is not the same guy who had the wherewithal to perform this complicated murder and cover up and get away with it. But much like Aaron Hutchinson, the existence of such a man on the very night of a triple murder offers so many tantalizing possibilities that it is hard, if not impossible to let it go. Even if at this point it's probably a mystery that can never be unraveled.
- [48:17]
Alice
Then there's the boy's clothes. So what about the clothes? One of the strangest facts about this case is that the boy's clothes had no blood or any other body fluid on them. That means because of the vicious beating we know they suffered. Animal predation aside, which I think there was some of, we know that skulls were beaten in. This means that the clothes were removed before the beating commenced. It also means that Jesse's story about using the boys clothes to shut them up is probably not true. If the clothes had been stuffed in the boys mouths, you'd think you'd see some blood or other DNA. Yes, the boys and the clothes were in the stream for some time before they were discovered. And it could have washed away some of the blood, some of the DNA. But could it have washed away all of the blood?
- [49:08]
Brett
So having said all that and discussed all that and given you various theories, possibilities, evidence for and against the guilt of the West Memphis three, what do we think actually happened? Alice, unless you're chomping at the bit, I'll go ahead and give my theory and then you can give yours. So let's start where we often start. What would you have to believe to believe that the West Memphis three are innocent? Well, you would have to believe that there is no forensic evidence tying the West Memphis three to the crime scene because they weren't there. You'd have to believe that the people who claimed to hear Damien or Jason confess to the crime were either wrong lying or, in the case of Damien, accurately describing Damien's empty, pathetic boasting about a crime he had nothing to do with. You would have to believe that the teens don't have alibis that night because it was a night that didn't matter. Maybe Jesse was wrestling, maybe Damian was talking to 12 year olds, or Jason was hanging out at Walmart, or maybe they were all home doing nothing. He'd have to believe they don't know because they'd have no reason to. You'd have to believe that this crime is not an extraordinary one involving multiple defendants, but rather an ordinary one with one offender. You'd have to believe that the knots and the wounds either aren't indicative of multiple killers, or they are, but just indicative of different killers. You'd have to believe that the most serious wounds, the ones that seemed to anchor Jesse's confessions, were really caused by animal predation. He'd have to believe that Chris Byers degloving injury wasn't inflicted by a teenager in the woods with the skill of a physician in a laboratory, but rather by an animal. He'd have to believe that Damien might have been a disturbed, sometimes violent kid, but he wasn't a criminal mastermind who could have committed this crime and covered it up with such sophistication and precision. You'd have to believe that Jesse Misskelley, a young man with intellectual deficiencies and a tendency to do things like huff gas, walked into the police station thinking he was going to get a reward for repeating vague things he'd heard about Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin, two people he knew but never really liked. And as the story spun out, a mismatch of half heard rumors, answers to leading questions and frankly, pure fantasy, Jesse managed to move from witness to co conspirator with his statement about going to get Michael Moore. And after he was convicted, an angry, confused Jesse both wanted both an out and to make sure that Damian and Jason, who for all he knew were guilty, didn't get away with it. And so he spun out new and more detailed stories, bolstered with details he knew from the trial he'd just undergone. Jesse never really stopped spinning, even when he began to proclaim his innocence. Like his conversation with Richard Offshay, the distinction between reality and fantasy was too much even for him. And here's the problem. None of those things is hard to believe, either in isolation or as a whole. The Case against the West Memphis Three is, for the most part, ephemeral. It's not quite smoke and mirrors. It's more a phantasmagoria, an amalgamation of rumor and innuendo, filling gaps left by a police force that was too overwhelmed to conduct the kind of investigation this case called for, colored by the satanic panic, Damien Echo's own arrogance, and a community that demanded justice whatever the cost. We gave you the narrative of the murder if committed by the West Memphis three earlier, and it's a good story, but is it based on anything? Yes. Jesse Misskelley confessed, and he confessed a lot. But what concrete evidence corroborates it? How much can you trust a confession that puts the murders in the morning when they happened at night? How do you get past that? How do you explain it away? And even if you can, is that the rock on which you want to build a conviction? How certain can you be about the guilt of these three people if Jesse is your best evidence? We talk about bias often, and, man, do I have one in this case. I came in with a singular goal. I wanted to prove that Damien Echols did this. Whether he did it alone with the other two people didn't matter much to me. And I tried. Let me tell you, and let me be perfectly honest, no one is more disappointed than I am that I could not get there. I don't like Damien Echols. I didn't like him when he was 18. I don't particularly like him now. He was an unstable, violent, arrogant, empty person when he was young. If he had not been imprisoned, he might have killed himself or hurt someone else. Not that you can put the blame all on him. His family was broken. His stepfather was an abuser. His mother defended that abuser over her children. He had no stability, and he was constantly searching for any kind of meaning in his life, to the extent that when he was accused of killing three children and even when he was convicted of it, he reveled in it. Maybe he's a different person now, though. Ask Jason Baldwin how he feels about him. But no matter how you feel about Damien Echols, no matter how bad exhibit 500 is, that's only a start. The innocence movement deifies the accused murderers. They seek to free those on the other side, demonize them. But both are wrong. That your suspect is a terrible person does not mean they committed the crime that you're looking at. It might be a place to begin, but you need evidence if you want to get to the finish line. And frankly, there's just not a Lot of evidence here. There's a lot of feelings, there's a lot of contradictory witnesses. There's almost nothing solid. And because we always do compare this to the Adnan side case. You didn't just have J. Wilde's statement with all its inaccuracies. You had Jen Pusateri's statement confirming it. You had the fact that J. Wiles could take police to Hae's car. We had Adnan lying to Hae about needing a ride the very day she was murdered in her own vehicle, and Adnan later lying to police about asking for that ride. We had cell phone data and we had a motive so common as to be innocuous. Hae had the temerity to pick another boy over Adnan. What. What piece of evidence in this case do you have that even approaches that? However you feel about Jesse's confessions, what corroborates them? I simply don't see it. Which is not to say that I think it's insane to think the West Memphis Three are guilty. The people who think this is the most obvious case of innocence haven't looked at many innocence cases. And there are things that continue to trouble me. It troubles me that there are real indications of multiple killers in this case. It troubles me that so many people told the police that Damien confessed to them, only to recant when visited by Ron Lacks. It troubles me that Jesse continued to confess even after his conviction and even into his years in prison. It troubles me that the people who were supposed to represent Jesse seem to be more concerned about the West Memphis 3 as a group than about Jesse himself. It troubles me that Jesse nails those obscure injuries we talked about to Stevie Branch, that he explains why Michael Moore is apart from the group that he nails the fact that Michael Moore was riding a girl's bike. These are the kind of small details that you'd expect from a true confession. The things that trouble me are not enough. I do not believe that three teenagers could engineer this cover up. Could they commit the murder? Absolutely. But Damien may think he's smart, but he's not that smart. I'm persuaded by Julia Cowley and Joseph Scott Morgan's arguments about the nature of the wounds, the sophistication of the criminal, and the likelihood that one person committed this crime. I believe the killer was nearby the entire time. I think they lived in the Mayfair apartment complex. I think they saw the boys enter and followed them in. I think it's possible that the boys were already unclothed for whatever reason when they found them and that they used this to control them. I think the COVID up had more to do with with the proximity to their home, to their familiarity with the woods than it did with their familiarity with the boys themselves. I think the killer was probably interviewed, though it wouldn't surprise me if they were not. But whoever committed the crime, I do not believe it was any of the West Memphis three.
- [57:36]
Alice
Does everyone need to take a breath? Take a drink of your pappy.
- [57:39]
Brett
Yeah. I'm disappointed in myself.
- [57:43]
Alice
A little disappointed. You think they're innocent? Wow, you are in the innocent camp. I'm just kidding. That was a lot more eloquent than that. That. Okay, you wore it all out there, Brett. Here we go. You may have heard of HelloFresh. They send Chef crafted recipes and fresh ingredients to your home. But this summer they made their biggest menu upgrade yet. This isn't the HelloFresh you remember. It's bigger, healthier and tastier. Hellofresh has doubled its menu. Now you can choose from 100 options each week, including new seasonal dishes and recipes from around the world. And you'll feel great with an even healthier menu filled with high protein and veggie packed recipes. HelloFresh now helps you eat greener with a new veggie packed recipe that have two or more veggies. And you can get steak and seafood recipes delivered every week for no extra cost. There's three times more seafood on the menu now at no extra cost. Discover new seasonal produce each week from snap peas to stone fruit to corn on the cob and more.
- [58:48]
Brett
Alice Recently I had one of their peach ch chicken recipes and it was absolutely delicious. I ate everything on my plate and it wasn't just me because we got enough for the kids as well and they loved it. And that's the thing about HelloFresh. It can make your life so much easier when you're trying to plan what to cook for yourself and for your family. The best way to cook just got better. Go to hellofresh.com prosecutors10fm now to get 10 free meals plus a free item for life. One per box with active subscription free meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's hellofresh.com prosecutors10fm to get 10 free meals plus a free item for life.
- [59:44]
Alice
Guys, it's summer and it's way too hot for bulky uncomfortable bras. This summer I'm reaching for Honeylove's cutting edge bras collection to stay cool, comfortable and support it all season long. If you're dealing with underwire, pokes or bras that feel like body armor, it's time for a serious upgrade. I couldn't believe it until I tried honeylove's bras for myself. They make the best wireless bras that feel like a second skin. They're lightweight, breathable, and perfect for hot summer days. Whether you're rocking a T shirt, tank top or breezy sundress, their bras give you just the right amount of lift without the squeeze. Thanks to years of research, development and testing, it's really the ultimate bra bra experience. And let's talk about comfort. Honeylove's signature support comes from a smart design, not stiff wires or bulky padding. And you can take it from me, I had to run around the city all day today going to meeting after meeting and I was wearing a honeylove bra and it was so comfortable. Supported me all day despite running around in summer heat. You know that feeling when you get home from a long day and immediately want to take off your bra? With Honeylove, you'll never experience that again. Honeylove's best selling crossover bra is so comfortable, it's sure to be your new go to bra. You guys have got to try it out.
- [60:58]
Brett
Treat yourself to the most comfortable and innovative bras on earth and save 20% off site wide@honeylove.com Prosecutors use our exclusive link to get 20% off honeylove.com Prosecutors after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you Experience the new standard in Bras with Honey Love.
- [61:26]
Alice
So there is still a lot that I still don't know and we may never know about this case, but this is what I do know. Follow me on this winding journey of seeming contradictions. You are invited into my way of thinking and you might feel nauseous by all the twists and turns and it may not make sense, but come with me because I wanted to put pen to paper for what we do know. Because like you said, this is an incredibly ephemeral case. So let's start with what I do know. Despite the police investigating the satanic ritualistic killing aspect of this case, they did so not at the exclusion of all other investigation. I do not think that this was a case of tunnel vision or a witch hunt or with an end goal in mind from the very beginning of the investigation. I don't think that they tried to spin up a satanic angle on their own looking for a scapegoat. The satanic angle after looking at all of the witness Testimony and all of the witness interviews and the police files, they came from multiple witnesses. And most importantly, it came from Damien himself. The police investigating this at the time, they had to investigate the satanic angle. It was the right thing to do. It would have been negligent not to look down this angle. And I start with that because obviously the first thing you think of this case is the West Memphis three were convicted because they wore black, because they listened to heavy metal, because they were devil worshippers. That might be true. I don't know if they actually worship the devil or not. But what I do know after looking at the entire file is this is not a case where the police were looking for a scapegoat and found one. Number two, with all that said, this investigation was deeply flawed. I think that's objectively true. And it's not because of some outcome driven malice by the police. I think it's because of incompetence and inexperience and also because of the incredible emotion wrapped up by everyone involved, not just the investigators, people reporting on the cases, the witnesses, because no one was ready for this horrific triple child homicide. It colored the entire investigation. The fact that there is so little forensic evidence tying to anyone is incredibly troubling because there was evidence. What happened to it? I don't know. I don't think it was destroyed or hidden away. I think it was simply not collected. I think this case, the investigation, was completely botched within the first 24 hours of the bodies being found. This was not a satanic killing. There was no ritualistic killing here. This was unfortunately, something that is much too common that we don't want to believe, which is that people can be incredibly violent for no reason at all. People who you think don't have the penchant for violence can do something this horrific. I think this was simply pure violence that is all too common today. Four, this is a very, very difficult case. Evidentially, this is a question I've been asking myself since day one. With the record, with the multiple confessions, with confessions by all three of the convicted, with the lack of forensic evidence, with some fibers, with the lack of interviews out there. I'm sitting at my prosecutor desk and I brought this case file. Much of the investigation has already passed me by. There are things that I cannot get back at this time. I'm writing to the Arkansas lab, begging for forensics back, and I get nothing. Would I, as the prosecutor, have brought this case? This is a really, really hard question because you all know that we have a duty to the court and a duty that we swear to that when we bring a case as a prosecutor, we're not looking for a win. We're not looking for probable cause, even though that's all you need to get an indictment. We're supposed to bring cases where we think there's something beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I would have brought this case as a prosecutor. I think it would be right there on that line. And I would have stayed awake night after night thinking, should I be bringing this case? I would have brought this case knowing there was a chance, a slim chance, but I think I could have said there is a chance that when these people go on the stand, when people are actually cross examined, the weight of the evidence of complete words, but not forensic evidence, could tip the jury in favor of beyond a reasonable doubt. But I would also go into this case knowing the chances of losing this case were astronomical, that I was much more likely to lose this case than not. But with all the evidence that I had access to, knowing it was a deeply flawed, deeply flawed investigation because of the things that are unexplainable in Jesse Misskelley's multiple confessions, because of Damien's own words, I agree. I think that is corroborated that he in fact did confess. Whether that was true or not is another question. I would think it was my duty to lay it out to the jury, lay it all out to them, and let them figure out which witnesses to believe and to let the justice system do its thing. And we've always been told that the hardest cases are ones that you don't know if you're going to win or not. And I would not be going in trying to get a win, but rather with the evidence I had, I had to lay it out for the justice system to do its thing. And if it came back as an acquittal, I would have accepted it, but I would have brought the case as the prosecutor. With all that said, at trial, which is a living, breathing thing, it is not a script. You do not know what will happen at trial. You do not know what witnesses will say at the end of the day being cross examined, when memories are jogged, when they're not jogged, what they remember. No matter how much prep you do, trial is a one of the wildest rides you'll ever take. After these trials, I do not think there was enough evidence to convict for any of the three. There was no evidence that has come out since then that I think is enough to convict. So while I would have brought the case the way the Trials came out. I don't think there was enough to convict everything that has happened since then. And there's going to be additional testing. Nothing has come out since then that has tipped the scales in favor of beyond a reasonable doubt to convict in my mind. But I've said this before also, a jury's verdict does not equal truth of what happened. The truth of what happened to those boys is something completely and wholly separate from a verdict that we will ever get. We try to have a justice system where truth and verdicts intersect as much as possible. But you can have an acquittal in a case where that acquittal is the fact in the criminal case, but it would not change the fact and the truth that the person is in fact guilty of the crimes charged. That's where truth and what happens in the court of law may not perfectly intersect. And even though I think the evidence presented does not go beyond a reasonable doubt, I think Jesse, Damian and Jason could have committed these murders. I've tried to think, is there a world in which it was only one of them? Because, boy, does Damien seem like the best one of the three. Or Jesse, Jason, question mark. And then you remember the cases, like Mark Duke. I've seen enough of these cases to know that anyone at any point pushed far enough or in the right circumstances or the wrong circumstances can do the most horrendous things, including you or I. We don't want to believe it, but that is true. So I don't think it's just one. If it were any of them, I think it was all three of them. Now, in our 25 episodes, spanning dozens of our hours of analysis and digging through the evidence and looking at pages and pages and pages that you can find yourself on our website, I cannot say with confidence that they did not commit the murders, only that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. So the universe of what I do know about this case is miniscule compared to the universe of what I don't know. So what do I think happened? I don't think this was a planned murder. Stevie, Michael and Christopher were at the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been a number of their group of friends. It just happened. It was that night, that afternoon, that day that the three of them were together. I don't think they were hunted individually or as a group. I do not think that this was as sophisticated of a murder as people give the killer or killers credit for. It was a rageful, violent, emotion filled murder. I think the boys were beaten or stomped to Death, death and most of the other injuries that have made this seem like such a salacious, ritualistic killing. I think what looked like sexual injuries or genital mutilation was really just animal predation. I think this was just a massive, horrific beating of the boys. So instead of some satanic ritualistic murder, this was just a deeply violent person. Something triggered the killer and they flew into a fury. And this happened in a matter of minutes, the entire murder. And if it wasn't the West Memphis three, I think it was one attacker, not just because of statistics, but because no one has broken silence after all these years. So while the murder wasn't particularly sophisticated, I do think the COVID up was very sophisticated with the tying, the sticking the boys into the mud, the bikes in the water, covering the tracks, washing off of the bank. So it does indicate that though the person lost control during the murder, he was able to gather himself to carry out the COVID up. I also think that is much more common than people realize. I think people who may seem unsophisticated to you are able to carry out things that appear very sophisticated. So while the beating and the killing was not sophisticated, the COVID up was slightly more so. I think the totality of this entire crime and cover up is actually much less sophisticated than people have given it credit for. It's scary to think how such violence can be so commonplace. But unfortunately, I think this case is much more commonplace than we'd like to believe. So, Brett, I think we're two sides. We're on different coins completely, but that's my occurrence.
- [71:29]
Brett
Well, let me say a few things now that you've so eloquently explained that, as always, you've convinced me they're guilty. Okay, no, I'll say this. Number one, I am totally open to being convinced that they're guilty. So if anybody wants to try and do that, please, I would love to be wrong. I mean, I just, you know, and this, and this just goes to what we've said a thousand times. You know, if you honestly look at a case, you can put your bias aside. You absolutely can. Like, if you know your bias and you go in with it and you look at the evidence, you can weigh that evidence and say, man, this sucks, but I gotta go the other way. And that's just the way I feel about this. And I have went back and forth the whole time we talked about this, and I just kept thinking, I'm gonna find something, there's gonna be something, there's gonna be a hook. And every now and then, I Think I found it. And it's like, oh, it's not enough, you know, or it'd fall apart. I mean, the jeans thing, I mean, that literally happened yesterday. But it's like, man, that was another one. That's another thing that Jesse says happened, and it just falls apart. And look, But I get it. Somebody said if Jesse was taking everything he was learning at trial and putting it in his new confession, he's like Kaiser Sose. And that's true. I mean, it is a little wild to think he was doing that, but, you know, it's like the bike, the fact that he knew it was a girl's bike on the surface is that it's so powerful. Unless, you know that those bikes, they introduced them the first thing, and they sat there in front of the jury and in front of Jesse for the entire trial. So he could have learned that fact very easily just from looking at it like, oh, that's a girl's bike. Right? And so then he includes that in the story. The things like the injury to Stevie Branch. I mean, wow, if he pulled that, that's pretty impressive. And then, like I said, these are things that trouble me. But I will just tell you my problem with this case is I feel like at the end, you just kind of go with your feeling. Like you have a feeling about this case, you know, it's not solid. And I'll give you another example, but I had not. So as y' all may know, like, every couple years, they roll out a new alibi witness for Adnan, and they rolled out another one a few weeks ago. And people are like, what do you think about this? And I'm like, I mean, listen, doesn't matter. I know it's not real. I know he's either confused about the time or got the day wrong or got the place wrong. How do I know that? Because I have all this solid evidence. I don't need to rely on what some person says about what they Suddenly remember from 26 years ago. I don't need that because I have rock solid evidence that I can point to. If someone came out today and said, actually, I was with Damien in 1993, I was with him the whole day, you'd have to consider that, because what is there that you can point to to say, no, I'm not going to listen to this person and their newly formed memory, because I've got this thing and I've built my house of justice on this rock, right? You just don't have that. And at the end of the day, I just feel like they didn't do it and it took me a long time to get there. But I feel like Jesse was there for the slap. I just do. I just feel like he was there and I think if he was there, it's a huge problem. I think the timing basically falls apart and so I can't get there. I want to say something about the police investigation and Alice, stop me anytime you want to jump in the police investigation. I want you to know I am not being overly critical of the police. I think the police were overwhelmed. I think they had some problems. You know, the state police were investigating the West Memphis PD for various things. Not necessarily Gitchell and his crew, but there was some conflict there. So it wasn't like they could just call up the state police and be like, hey, come help us. Right? And I think Gitchell, he was sort of an old school guy in his investigative tactics and he'd had a big case a few years before this and he solved it by sending out his guys to canvass the area and they got a tip and it solved the case. And it was his biggest victory of his life. Life. And I think he thought, that's how I'm going to approach this. And he sort of sends his guys out, but there were just too many people to talk to and there was too much evidence to gather and they didn't do it. They did not talk to everyone in that apartment complex, which is mind blowing.
- [75:20]
Alice
They didn't talk to the parents. They didn't talk to the parents. Parents, right. This is why this case is so hard and why I started with what we do know. Cuz what we do know is so little and so much that can be known is lost forever.
- [75:33]
Brett
Yeah.
- [75:33]
Alice
I mean, she lost forever.
- [75:35]
Brett
And I think Alice is right. And this may sound contradictory to you, if you're in the moment at the time and you're prosecuting that case and you have Jesse Misskelley giving you this confession and it has some corroboration. He's describing the injury to Chris Byers, he's describing the location of Michael Moore. How do you not prosecute that case? How do you turn that case down? And it's weird because at the time, knowing what they knew then, with no one suggesting animal predation, how do you not move forward with that? And you can understand why the jury convicted. But I'll tell you this, without Jesse's confession, Damien and Jason never should have been convicted. Especially Jason, like you tried Jason.
- [76:13]
Alice
Let's talk about. Let's talk about the trial, I mean, Jason should have absolutely been severed. I actually think, as the prosecutor did, I have a duty to, like, basically suggest it to his lawyer. Looking at the evidence, you should be severing this trial. That was a huge mistake for Jason. I think Jason tried separately from Damian, would not have been convicted because there was no Jesse confession.
- [76:33]
Brett
And let me say this. People ask, why did Jesse keep confessing? I mean, number one, I don't know. I mean, you'd have to ask Jesse. But think about who Jesse is. If you watch Paradise Lost, I really think Jesse thought he was gonna be acquitted. You know, I think he thought he wouldn't be convicted. He gets convicted. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison. So his subsequent confessions, the ones immediately afterwards, are not that surprising to me. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison. And remember, if I'm right, and his sort of initial story to the police and what he says before the polygraph is he's heard all the same things everybody else has heard about Damon. He thinks he's a freak. He thinks he's weird. He drinks blood. He says this consistently about Damien. He probably thinks he did it. And he's going in there for the same reason that he and his buddies accused another guy who lived in the West Memphis woods, right? Remember that they had already pointed their fingers at somebody else and that person was cleared. And now Jesse's pointing his finger at the people that he knows. Based on the chatter in the community, the police are really interested in Damien and by extension, Jason. Maybe he thinks he's just going to get the reward. But he messed up when he said that thing about Michael, right? I don't know why he said that. Obviously, if he did it, I know why he said it. But assuming. Assuming he's innocent. But when he said that, it flips everything. All of a sudden, he's an accomplice, right? So then he gets wrapped up in it. Then he's convicted. He still probably thinks that Damian and Jason did it. Remember that moment in Paradise Lost when his friend or sister or whatever talks about Damon being a good kid? And Jesse's like, what are you talking about? Right. He probably thought, walking out of that courthouse, they did it. I don't want them to get away with it. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison for something I didn't do while the actual killers walked free. And I'd like a deal. So he tells the story again, and he tells the Story. I mean, Stidham thinking that Jesse wouldn't lie with his hand on the Bible. I mean, you sweet summer child. Like, I know he was a new defense attorney at the time, but of course he would lie with his hand on the Bible. Bible, like, come on. And all that did was create a new confession bolstered by information Jesse now has that is going to be used against him forever. Then his attorneys, in my opinion, lie to him and tell him, no, no, no, we have evidence that's going to prove you didn't do it. So then he retracts his confession because he really doesn't want to spend any time in prison. So it's not that surprising to me that he continued to confess. Now, there have been rumors of confessions that Jesse has made subsequently in the years while he was in prison. Those are harder to explain. I don't know what to tell you about those. Like I said, I don't feel about the West Memphis three's innocence like I do about Scott Peterson's guilt. Right, right.
- [79:22]
Alice
Like, no, this is a pure, like you can say, like, we truly, and we've been very transparent with you guys. We have changed our minds back and forth, you know, and there's a reason why, like the case, at least my conclusion is ephemeral as well, because I don't think there is enough one way to have the Adnan style closing argument. There's not that hard evidence there. There's not that forensic evidence here. But that's part of my problem as the prosecutor bringing the case. There was no forensic evidence, period. So that meant it was a shoddy investigation on that front, on the forensics front.
- [79:55]
Brett
And obviously, look, look, I think everyone would agree, and I realize this is sort of an absurd statement, but I think everyone would agree if you did not have Jesse's statements, if Jesse never spoke to the police and we were covering this case and maybe Damien was eventually tried and convicted or maybe he wasn't and it's an unsolved case and we're talking about suspects. It is hard for me to believe that anyone would feel strongly that they did it because there's no evidence they did it. I mean, all you have is what Jesse says. Really? That's really all you have. And the fact that Damien is the usual suspect, which, as I said, great place to start. I'm not telling you. Don't start with the guy who's obviously violent and has violent tendencies, but that's a really good way to get a false conviction is when you just say, well, he's violent, has violent tendencies. He lived in the area, so he probably did it. I absolutely think Damian could have done this, 100%, but I don't think he did, and I don't think Jesse did, and I don't think Jason did. And I don't, I just don't think it works on multiple levels. So that's where I am. I mean, and I just want to be clear. I'm not saying I have reasonable doubt. I'm saying they didn't do it. I'm saying there is.
- [81:04]
Alice
We're different on that.
- [81:05]
Brett
Yeah.
- [81:06]
Alice
You think they're innocent? I think they could have done it. I just don't think there's evidence of it.
- [81:10]
Brett
This doesn't mean I want to start hanging out with the West Memphis three innocence people. I do not. But.
- [81:16]
Alice
But you're gone, Brett.
- [81:17]
Brett
Yeah, I know, but there's, you know, I'm as disappointed as anybody, trust me, like I am. And I didn't know where I was gonna go, you know, I really didn't. I mean, and I've changed my mind several times, but I feel, I feel pretty good about wearing.
- [81:32]
Alice
We'll do a follow up episode every April 1st about how we've changed our minds.
- [81:35]
Brett
Right, Exactly. So I don't know, Alice, if you have other thoughts in general and, and.
- [81:41]
Alice
No, I mean, the winding contradictions is truly, it's because this kid entire case, case has so many holes that you can't help but have these contradictions. Where I ultimately land is I do not think that. I do not cannot say with confidence that they are innocent. I also cannot say with confidence that they're guilty. What I can say is I think they could have done it. There was the opportunity, there was the penchant. And there's enough what you said, gut feeling that they could have done it. But as a juror, I don't think the jury should have convicted either then with what they knew or what we know now. And there's been some, you know, additional testing and whatnot. Nothing has come out since then and I honestly don't think much more will come out now that is going to swing this case one way or the other in terms of us actually knowing with certainty. So I do not know with certainty whatsoever.
- [82:30]
Brett
But I think the jury should have convicted Jesse.
- [82:34]
Alice
That's a good question. I can understand the jury convicting Jesse without Jesse's confessions, testifying at Damian and Jason's trials, I don't see how they can be convicted. I think there is a world just because the jury is a black box right where Jesse can be convicted. But across the board, I am comfortable saying that I think there was reasonable doubt to not convict all three of them, but I don't think that necessarily means they didn't do it.
- [82:59]
Brett
Jesse's first confession is pretty weak.
- [83:01]
Alice
I mean, yeah, there's like nothing in it.
- [83:02]
Brett
The criticisms of that confession are pretty good. I mean, we didn't even mention all like him saying the boys one was choked with a stick. That didn't happen. You know, I mean, there were lots of things he said. I think he probably did know some information from that one guy whose name Johnson or whatever who was in the search and rescue team. He probably did learn some information from him. But I think it's probably also possible, if not likely, that the police led him more aggressively in the unrecorded portion than we know. And we just won't know that. And we don't know that. But even if they didn't, what he said, there just wasn't a lot there. The Bible confession is so much better, you know, like, it is so much better.
- [83:44]
Alice
And I think part of the problem here is with all that we've read about Jesse, I know everyone points to his iq and so therefore all of the inconsistencies is because of, you know, his iq. He's being led or he's making things up and he doesn't even know it. I think he's a lot smarter than people give him credit for. And I don't mean like book smart. We've talked about the kind of the ability to operate in life. He was an incredibly violent person. Person. He got to do things his way because he was violent, he was scrappy. And I don't think he was as confused in his confessions as people think he was. I think what he's saying, he knows what he's doing. I think he's a very bad communicator. I think it came out in his test, right. He's a very bad communicator. He doesn't write well. He doesn't reason well. In terms of, like, book smarts, he's not a good communicator. I have talked to a lot of witnesses who do not suffer from low IQ who communicate the way that Jesse communicates, which is to say spaghetti on the wall. It's impossible to follow what they're saying even though they know what's going on. So I don't know exactly where that leads me, But I don't think he's just this, like, completely dopey. Guy that was able to be led around on a leash. I think he was toying with the police a lot. He was doing things knowingly. He knew the cause and effect. One of the things that you look at for low IQ is whether you can see the cause and effect. Like if you can see multiple chess moves down the road, he could see what was happening. He would say things that indicated he knew what type of responses he could elicit from the police. And he could see multiple steps down the line that were results of his actions. Because of that, I think he was much more in control of what he was saying. Now, could he have been lying? 100%. But I don't buy into this whole he had a low iq, he had no idea what was happening. He was just a pawn to find a scapegoat by a satanic panic ridden investigation. I don't think that happened.
- [85:27]
Brett
Yeah, I'll say this. If the West Memphis innocence people, which I guess I'm now one, are right, that Jesse Misskelley has this incredibly low IQ and is barely functional, all sorts of other stuff, then they're all guilty. Because in his Bible confession, he's just telling what happened. I think he's a lot smarter than people give him credit for. And maybe, you know, he's not a great communicator, but remember his IQ test, he wasn't a great communicator, but he did have street smarts. And I think he was the kind of person who could take some information and use it. But if he's the way Dan Stidham describes him, they're guilty because you don't manufacture the Bible confession if you're that kind of person, the way he's described by some people. So I think that's the case number two. Let me be very clear about this. I do not think that Terry Hobbs is involved in this at all or John Mark Byers or any of the people who've been mentioned. I don't think any of them are involved. I don't think it was L.G. hollingsworth, though. He's a little, you know, who knows, you know, on him. But I think there have been a lot of people who've been slandered on this. I really think it's not someone we know or it's one of these obscure people who, as we went through the case, you were like, like the Hannibal Lecter guy or the Peeping Tom guy. And the fact of the matter is we don't know how many more of those people were living in the area. Of the woods because the police didn't talk to everybody. And so that's.
- [86:50]
Alice
And this was not a great area. It's right by the highway, there is a truck stop. There's low income housing, you know, surrounding it. Not that low income housing itself has bad characters, but you have a lot of transient people in this area. One thing I wanted to note where I disagree with you as well is I know we've talked about and I think it's a very compelling story, but I think it may be it's something that I would want to tamp down. I personally don't think that the boys had taken off their clothes or were sexually experimenting. It's very possible that they may have been watching someone. That's much more likely if they were in a hurry because they saw people doing sexual things in the woods or anything else. That was a taboo at the time and they were going to do that. I don't think that they were the ones who were taking off their own clothes and sexually experimenting. Obviously there's a lot of reasons why I think that story shouldn't continue to be propelled. We should talk about it because if it had anything to do with the story, if Terry Hobbs were the killer, for example, example, that would be an incredibly compelling narrative motive as to why he lost control and killed the boys. Because he was like, what are you doing? Why are you doing that? Here's the thing. We Talked about this. 8 is pretty young to be sexually experimenting in this way. Not so if you were sexually abused like in the Asha degree case where if the parents had been abusive physically, you would have heard something about it from someone at some point. Eight year olds talk, especially when you're talking about taboo things, even if they don't know the right words for it. So the fact that we have nothing really that has come out since then, no one alleged there was some sort of sexual abuse or some sort of. Except for that like one potential sighting of the boys, you know, behind a dumpster with their pants down. I don't know about you guys, but like my 7 year old still today, in fact I was on the phone, a work call in fact, and both of my boys were sword fighting with their pee in the middle of like, like my driveway. And it was like for the world to see. So I am not at all convinced. And some of this is gut feeling, but some of this is the lack of testimony that has come out about this as well from witnesses after the fact of even I heard something. They talked about things they shouldn't have known about there was someone abusive in their life, something like that. So I don't think that the boys were already naked and experimenting sexually and they were found that way. I do think that they were unclothed by their murderer or murderers. So that is one point that I have felt very uneasy about and talking about in our theories in terms of like, whether there was something sexual. And also because it puts something on the victims in a way that I just don't think there's enough evidence to say that was part of the story. Again, very salacious and such a compelling theory. Right. Why they didn't run. But I do think the murderer. Murderers took the clothes off. I don't know if it was before the beatings. I just think there was forensic evidence that was completely lost. So I think that's another kind of unknowable right now that would be a lot more explainable if we found some DNA on their clothes. I think it's still very possible that they were still beaten with their clothes on and the clothes were taken off later because there was so much stuff on them and they either rubbed it off half. I don't know what they did, and I don't even know if it's possible to wash off all that DNA. But I do think that they were clothed. They were just being boys. They were just being boys who were playing and having a great time in the woods like they've been doing so many times before, hiding it from their parents because their parents did not want them playing by the drainage ditches. Completely understandable because it's water, it's muddy, it's dirty. There's transient people on the other side of the highway. But they were just being boys, doing what boys should be able to do. Play and get dirty and have fun. And they met with some horrific, horrific person who had absolutely no qualms with what they've done because they haven't confessed since then. Other. Unless it's Jesse and they met their end for doing nothing but being boys who like to play in the mud, which is what every child should have the freedom to do.
- [90:43]
Brett
So I don't think there's any way they were wearing their clothes when they were attacked. I just. I don't think think they could have been beaten as viciously as they were and there not be blood on some of the clothes, any of the clothes. And I don't think the police were that incompetent that they would have missed it or that the subsequent investigations would have missed it. And I don't Think it's possible for the water to have washed it all away. So, I mean, remember the jeans we've been talking about apparently have touch DNA on them. Now, maybe that was from like a police officer or whatever, but it's possible. Then it just was on the jeans. So I really think their clothes are removed before they were beat, however it happened. And I think the one thing, if that's true, probably wasn't the West Memphis three, because once again, Jesse says that the beating started immediately, that the boys walked in, Damien grabs one, and they start beating them, and they don't remember their clothes till later. So I just think if the clothes came off last, there would be more evidence.
- [91:45]
Alice
And I don't think we're completely inconsistent in that. Sure. Very likely they were beaten without the clothes on. That also doesn't surprise me in the sense that whoever did this, I mean, they. They were targeting children. Whether it was a emotional moment of the. Rather than a plan thing, whatever. They. They didn't have any qualms. And I'm sorry, but when kids are involved, there's usually a sexual component to it, whether it's power and control tied with the, you know, sexual component or not. But I think, like in the deli case, where we were able to see just a snippet right before the girls were overtaken by Richard Allen, he's very calm. He just says to them, guys down the hill, I think it's very possible they were playing in the woods doing their thing. If they took off their clothes, maybe they did it because they knew that if they got wet and muddy, their parents would find their clothes and they'd get in trouble. So maybe they did take off their clothes, but it wasn't for sexual nature. But I also think it's incredibly possible, and there is the time to do it for a killer, and it doesn't have to be multiple killers, but for a killer to tell them to take off their clothes or to take the clothes off of them, to humiliate them, to control them, what have you. I'm merely saying that I don't think that they themselves were naked for the purposes of sexually experimenting in the woods. Because I don't think, unless more, you know, witness testimony comes out about that, I don't think there's enough to say that that is pure speculation.
- [93:04]
Brett
Well, the thing I'll say about that, I think the fact that you have as much evidence as you do in 1993, you have two different witnesses, two different circumstances, and you have Christopher Byers mom suggesting that he's being sexually assaulted. To me, that's a lot of evidence from the 90s. But you're right. I mean, you can't prove it. It's speculation. I just think it's something, those facts, because I do think they were very young. The behind the dumpster thing is one thing. When they walked in on the boys, when him and his brother and his friend walked in, that's a little bit more obviously sexual. And they were only eight. But you're right. I mean, there's no way to know that unless whoever did it eventually confesses. They're doing this new DNA testing. I will tell you, I am not optimistic. You know, I mean, we'll see how it goes. Technology is great, but we'll just see.
- [93:51]
Alice
I just don't think there's a lot of forensic evidence. And that was from day one. I don't think it's from lack of technology. I think we just a shot. You can't, you know, create a profile of nothing.
- [94:00]
Brett
And that is a problem. So, unfortunately, and I said this earlier, that I really wanted to say they were guilty, and one reason I wanted to say they were guilty is it really bothers me that whoever did it, if I'm right, is still out there. And it bothers me that the parents have not gotten closure. And it. I mean, it bothers me, obviously, that three innocent people were convicted. But, I mean, the case is so tragic as it is. It would be nice to at least be able to say, at least we know who did it. At least it's closure. At least they spent 18 years in prison or whatever. Like, I would love to be able to say that, but I just can't get there. Like I said, if you want to try and convince me, feel free to send me your best arguments for why the West Memphis three are guilty. I know a lot of you think they are guilty, and that's fine. As we've said before, disagreement is great. It's the spice of life, right? Spice of the gallery, certainly. So, hey, bring it.
- [94:51]
Alice
This has been a much less controversial case that I fear is, to be totally honest.
- [94:56]
Brett
And I don't know if that's because we started with Karen Reed or if, like, people are just more reasonable than people made them out to be. The Adnan people were crazy.
- [95:05]
Alice
That was crazy.
- [95:06]
Brett
They were crazy.
- [95:07]
Alice
People threatened to sue us. Like, Westmith is still. People made a whole show attacking us.
- [95:12]
Brett
Most of the.
- [95:13]
Alice
I'll say this, every episode that came out for Adnan, for example, we would get a slew of one star Apple reviews this case, it's like barely a blip in terms of people are just like, oh, I like them, they're good. Or I hate them. But it's not been like every episode where it's like the army comes out and it's a new slew of one star reviews.
- [95:30]
Brett
Yeah. Some people have complained about how long it went, but that's about it. And the people in the gallery, which.
- [95:35]
Alice
Is completely, objectively true, it's been very long.
- [95:38]
Brett
The people in the gallery who were like, Pro West Memphis 3 have really just tried to present evidence about why we're wrong. They haven't come in and said, we're terrible, horrible people. So, you know, and now I guess they'll be happy. But at least with me, not with you.
- [95:54]
Alice
But yeah, I ain't afraid.
- [95:56]
Brett
We'll obviously continue to follow this case. I mean, we spent 24 episodes on it. I seriously doubt we'll ever do 24 episodes on a case again.
- [96:05]
Alice
I hope not. And if we do, if we do, we really should make it a separate podcast.
- [96:11]
Brett
Probably should.
- [96:12]
Alice
Like a different series. But then you guys, for those of you who asked us to do that, you know what that means, right? We have to then record like, like three whole shows every week. We are. We're very tired.
- [96:25]
Brett
Yeah, they love that. Maybe one day. Maybe one day. Well, by the time this comes out, it'll be the end of August. We'll be getting ready to see all you guys in Denver for CrimeCon. We're really excited to see you bring your best West Memphis three arguments. And hey, we'll be starting on a new case soon. Is there anything else you want to say, Alice? Any other questions you want to answer? Any other thoughts you have? Any last second brilliant observations?
- [96:52]
Alice
No brilliant observations. This is wholly unsatisfying.
- [96:55]
Brett
I told you we could do this in one episode.
- [96:57]
Alice
I think we were on a mission to do it in one episode. And part of it is there's not some big nar. Like I'm not gonna, you know, the narrative part. There's not enough evidence for me to paint this beautiful story because I'm not going to, you know.
- [97:09]
Brett
Yeah. I mean, conviction is always a nice thing, right? It's nice to be able to really believe something and be passionate about.
- [97:16]
Alice
About it.
- [97:17]
Brett
And I'll say this, you know, passionate people are convincing. Like we both, if we had wanted to, if we'd wanted to deceive you.
- [97:26]
Alice
Yeah.
- [97:27]
Brett
We could have picked side. And I think you saw that if you listen to the episode, we could have picked a side and been pretty convincing. So, you know, just be wary of that in your general life. That just because people are loud and passionate doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Unless it's Alice at the end of the ad. No, I'm serious with.
- [97:44]
Alice
But that's because I believe.
- [97:45]
Brett
Absolutely correct.
- [97:46]
Alice
Because I believed it.
- [97:47]
Brett
Yeah.
- [97:48]
Alice
But there's not enough for me. And I'm not going to use, like, the methods of persuasion as some people have accused me, that the only way people are convinced by me is my method of persuasion. Yeah, I'll take the passion to bear when the evidence is there to bear as well.
- [98:02]
Brett
Oh, look, I know you have thoughts. Shoot us an email. Prosecutors Pod at Prosecutors Pod for all your social media. Join us on the gallery to discuss this. If you want to look at case documents, if you want to look at these latest DNA results, we have. Those are on Prosecutors podcast dot com. Check it out, let us know what you think. Our goal in doing this was to present to you the evidence from both sides. So hopefully you got that and were able to form your own opinion. Your opinion may be different than ours, and that's absolutely fine. Just base it in evidence. And I admit, in this case, that's a little bit more difficult because the way the evidence will hit you, you. It may be different than the way it hit me, the way it hit Alice, because so much of this. And this is another lesson from this case. This is the ultimate direct evidence case. It's all witnesses telling you what they saw, what they heard, what they did. That is what this case is based on. And you are deciding this case based on. Do you feel like they were credible? Do you think what they're telling you is true?
- [99:02]
Alice
True.
- [99:03]
Brett
You're just making judgment calls left and right, and there's really not a whole lot to point to and say. The reason my judgment is correct is because I have this outside thing that's pointing this direction. You just don't have that in this case. So, yay, circumstantial evidence.
- [99:18]
Alice
Yes.
- [99:19]
Brett
Great. If we had more of it. All right, well, look, I've enjoyed doing this podcast with you, Alice, but it's time, I think, to lay down the microphone and return as podcasters forever. So it's been fun. You know, we wanted to go off.
- [99:35]
Alice
That's why we're not on Creator of the Year for the ballot, because we've decided to retire. We're just gonna, you know, they said.
- [99:42]
Brett
Are you still gonna be doing this in September? Said, no, of course not. It's our last Crime con retiring. Yeah.
- [99:47]
Alice
But you know what we will continue to do? We'll do exclusive episodes for premier Patreon level. So that's the only podcast we will now have. It's gonna be called the Premiere Premiere.
- [99:57]
Brett
And it's going to be premier Prosecutors. It's all going to be like the April Fool's episode. So we're not doing any more true crime. It's just going to be us talking about Taylor Swift and our lives and our babies and sports and movies and music.
- [100:11]
Alice
That's all the best things.
- [100:13]
Brett
Yeah, it's going to be fantastic.
- [100:15]
Alice
So it's going to be a no true crime zone.
- [100:17]
Brett
So if you want to, like, check this feed next week and just see if a new case shows up, you can do that. But. But don't be surprised if there's nothing there. With that said, anything else you want to add, Alice, before we sign off?
- [100:31]
Alice
I feel like these really big cases that we do, Murdoch, Murdick, Adnan, they all. They all carry such a special place in my heart because real big life events happen around them. Like, this was your baby. You know, your baby's entire life was this series. And. And the facts really, like, become part of you. You can't separate yourself. You know, this is not something that just is a night job or a day job. It really is something that you internalize. And at core, this is an incredibly, incredibly tragic case. I have not loved eating, sleeping, drinking, waking up, thinking about it all most of the day about a horrific triple homicide. But I really am glad that we did this, because in diving in, you could see how much misinformation there has been. I don't know that we're any closer to the truth, but I think we have hopefully pruned away a lot of the misinformation for the sake of the boys.
- [101:27]
Brett
I agree 100%. And there's no one I would rather spend 24 episodes on. I mean, this is like 40 hours of coverage, right?
- [101:36]
Alice
At least.
- [101:36]
Brett
At least.
- [101:37]
Alice
I think it might be more. Well, thank you, Brett.
- [101:40]
Brett
It's been an honor. It's been an honor, Alice. It's been an honor. Maybe I'll see you next week. But until then, I'm Brett.
- [101:47]
Alice
And I'm Alice.
- [101:48]
Brett
And we are the prosecutor.
- [102:10]
Alice
You know what? I hope someone uses this for what? One of the coolest parts about, like, Taylor Swift's song. I'm only doing this, you know, because that one star critique, he's like, blah, blah, blah, Taylor Swift. This is why I keep talking about Taylor Swift. This is my way of throwing shade if you guys can't pick up on my very subtle. Shade is her song about, you know, singing with a broken heart.
- [102:34]
Brett
Start.
- [102:34]
Alice
And it's hurt the countdown. So I hope someone uses our countdown as.
- [102:38]
Brett
Oh, I see.
- [102:40]
Alice
Three, two, one. Sam, you're tired, right? I'm so tired.
- [103:48]
Brett
I'm exhausted.
- [103:48]
Alice
I'm so tired. We were the prosecutors.
- [103:57]
Brett
You know. You think all our the people here now would have noticed that we've already recorded the next episode. I know you would think that.
- [104:16]
Alice
Sam. Hi, I'm Jessi Pere. And I'm Andy Cassette. Welcome to Love Murder, where we unravel the darkest tales of romance turned deadly. Our episodes are long form, narrative driven and deeply researched. Perfect for the true crime aficionados seeking stories beyond the headlines. Like the chilling case of Blanche Taylor Moore, the so called black widow who left a trail of poisoned lovers. Or the shocking murders of Chad Shelton and Dwayne Johnson, where family ties masked a sinister plot. Subscribe to Love Murder on Apple podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. Imagine being on a vacation for a very long time. Now imagine saving money nightly while you do it. Sounds pretty great, right? With vrbo's long stay discounted, you can stay longer and save more. Our customers save an average of 10% when they book select properties for a week or longer. Just in case you needed another reason to extend that vacation, book the Perfect Summer Getaway today with VRBO Private Vacation Rentals. Your future self will thank you later.