The Prosecutors — Episode 325: The West Memphis 3, Part 24 — Theories

Release Date: August 26, 2025
Hosts: Brett and Alice
Podcast: The Prosecutors (PodcastOne)

Overview

In this landmark 24th installment of their epic West Memphis Three series, Brett and Alice examine the web of theories surrounding the 1993 murders of three young boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. Drawing on decades of documents, extensive forensic records, and confessions, they break down the major theories about who was responsible, weigh the evidence for and against the West Memphis Three’s guilt, and ultimately reveal their own evolving perspectives—showing just how elusive definitive answers can be in a cold case haunted by botched investigation, rumors, and public mythologies. This episode is a marathon of critical thinking, skepticism, empathy, and candor—delivering the clearest distillation yet of the case’s lingering mysteries.

Episode Structure and Key Segments

• [00:48] Introductions and context: why this case matters so much
• [03:34] Recent DNA revelations and correcting previous misinformation
• [07:36] Deep dive into alternative theories
• [18:05] The West Memphis Three as suspects: motivation, psychology, and confession analysis
• [29:41] Evidence For and Against Guilt: Jesse’s confessions, forensic evidence, alibis, knots, and more
• [49:07] The Hosts’ Personal Theories: Brett & Alice lay out what they truly believe
• [61:26] Closing reflections: The enduring uncertainty and pain of unsolved cases

Major Discussion Points & Insights

Setting the Stage: Acknowledging the Complexity

• Alice emphasizes the emotional and intellectual “lock-in” the case creates for everyone invested, host and listener alike ([01:48]).
• Brett and Alice both lay out their commitment to objectivity and willingness to challenge their own biases.
• Correction of prior podcast info: Contrary to common belief, the infamous jeans were tested for semen and DNA, with results undermining parts of Jesse Misskelley’s confession (see [03:34]).

“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... It seems to undermine Jesse’s confession on one point.”
— Brett (05:03)

Surveying the Theories (07:36–18:05)

1. Killed Elsewhere, Dumped in Robin Hood Hills

• The “trucker” and “manhole/drainage tunnel” scenarios explained as plausible only if you accept the near-total absence of blood or evidence at the scene.
• Both hosts find the risks of moving the bodies post-mortem make this unlikely given lack of further evidence ([09:27]).

2. Alternative Local Suspects:

John Mark Byers

• Once widely considered a prime suspect due to being “kind of a strange guy,” Byers’ alibi during the presumed window of the killings is airtight ([12:44]).

Terry Hobbs

• The only stepfather remaining as a statistically likely perpetrator.
• Motives (discipline, rage) explored, as well as the evolution of more lurid, less plausible theories (e.g., multiple adults in a tryst).
• Physical evidence against him consists almost entirely of a hair with weak probative value. His timeline is “exceedingly tight, maybe impossible.” His errors and gaps are partly blamed on the police’s delayed and poor interviewing ([16:46]).
• The hosts ultimately find little real evidence against him beyond rumor and speculation.

3. The West Memphis Three

Psychological Profiles and Motivation

• The hosts emphasize the troubled backgrounds of the accused (broken homes, prior violence, emotional issues), then draw analogies to other teen-perpetrated murders to show that, yes, “even unlikely suspects can do monstrous things” ([18:39]), referencing the Mark Duke/Michael Samra case as precedent.

What Could Have Happened?

• Hypothetical scenario: Damien, Jason, and Jesse, fueled by anger and intoxication, attack the boys after an encounter in the woods. Killings weren’t planned but a result of rage; the bodies hidden in haste, evidence disposed of as best they could in the moment ([26:37]).

For and Against: Unpacking the Evidence (29:41–49:07)

Evidence that Implies Guilt

• Jesse’s Confessions: Multiple—though inconsistent—statements, some made before he could have learned trial details, with certain correct “inside” details (e.g., locations, injuries).
• Damien’s violent tendencies and mental instability; pattern of lashing out at peers.
• Hollingsworth Sighting: Multiple witnesses place Damien near the scene—though possibly with timing or identity confusion.
• Splashes in Water: Ryan Clark (victim’s brother) hearing suspicious noises; timing lines up with possible disposal/cover-up.
• Weak Alibis: The teens’ whereabouts remain unaccounted for at key times; some witnesses may have been influenced or recanted post-conviction.
• Knots and Bindings: Variation in knots suggests multiple perpetrators.

Evidence that Implies Innocence

• Blatant Confession Errors: Jesse repeatedly gets time and sequence of events wrong—errors not easily ascribed to minimizing or to tricking police.
• Injury Analysis: Professional reviews suggest animal predation, not a knife, explains key “ritualistic” wounds; undermining the confessions’ apparent insider knowledge ([36:41]).
• Hollingsworth Sighting Flaws: The timeline doesn't fit; the pair were likely seen leaving too late after the murders to have been the killers ([39:14]).
• Lack of Forensics: No fingerprints, DNA, or physical forensics tie the West Memphis Three to the scene—just weak fiber evidence.
• Clothes Anomaly: The complete absence of blood on the victims’ clothes suggests the boys were naked before the fatal beating–but none of the confessions get this detail right ([48:16]).
• Unreliable Confessions & Motive: Contradictory statements; Jesse’s low IQ and adaptability; possibility of police leading, desire for reward, or confusion; all leave room for doubt.

Hosts’ Theories: Where They Land

Brett’s View ([49:07], [71:28])

• After admitting his own bias—wanting to find for guilt—Brett concludes he cannot get there.
• He sketches what someone would have to believe in order to exonerate the West Memphis Three—and finds none of those beliefs implausible.
• "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."
• Brett leans toward the theory that the real killer lived near the woods, acted alone, and was likely never properly interviewed. He finds the evidence against the Three simply too weak.

"I do not believe that three teenagers could engineer this cover up. Could they commit the murder? Absolutely. But … that's only a start. You need evidence if you want to get to the finish line. And frankly, there's just not a lot of evidence here."
— Brett ([52:55])

Alice’s View ([61:26])

• Alice details her own winding thought process—acknowledging the “ephemeral” nature of the evidence.
• She is skeptical that the investigation was a “witch hunt” or suffered satanic panic-driven tunnel vision; rather, she blames incompetence, overwhelmed police, and emotional responses.
• She says she would have prosecuted the case as a DA given the information at the time, albeit reluctantly: “I would also go into this case knowing the chances of losing this case were astronomical…”
• At trial, she does not believe there was enough evidence to convict any of the Three, nor would she now.
• In sum: “I cannot say with confidence that they did not commit the murders, only that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.” She underscores the distinction between legal guilt and “the truth”—and cautions against conflating verdict and reality.
• She theorizes the murders were not ritualistic or sophisticated, just sudden, explosive violence, perhaps by one disturbed individual with a haphazard but effective cleanup.

Notable Quotes

• Alice: “This is a Question I’ve been asking myself since day one… 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 think it was my duty to lay it out to the jury… and let the justice system do its thing.” ([62:49])
• Brett: “No matter how you feel about Damien Echols, no matter how bad exhibit 500 is, that’s only a start… But both are wrong. That your suspect is a terrible person does not mean they committed the crime that you’re looking at.” ([53:12])
• Alice: “The universe of what I do know about this case is miniscule compared to the universe of what I don’t know.” ([65:15])
• Brett: “It would be nice to at least be able to say, at least we know who did it. At least...they spent 18 years in prison… I would love to be able to say that, but I just can’t get there.” ([93:59])

Memorable Moments

• Brett’s digression into the Michael Samra/Mark Duke case, which personally affected him as an attorney and shaped his view of how ordinary-appearing teens can commit horrific crimes ([18:39]).
• The hosts confronting their own shifting perspectives and the effect of their research on their long-held beliefs.
• Both reflecting, with exhaustion and humility, on the emotional toll this case and the series has taken (“I have not loved eating, sleeping, drinking, waking up, thinking about it... But I really am glad that we did this, because...you could see how much misinformation there has been.” — Alice [100:31])
• The hosts’ meta-commentary about podcasting, the passionate partisanship of different true crime communities, and the challenge of “being convincing” versus being truth-seeking ([97:09]).

Final Takeaways

• The case against the West Memphis Three is not strong enough for either host to declare them guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Both find the lack of forensics, reliance on a deeply flawed confession, and the absence of solid corroboration to be fatal weaknesses.
• Brett does not believe the WM3 did it; Alice says she cannot rule them out, but would not have convicted.
• Both believe the murders were likely the act of a single disturbed individual, possibly an as-yet unidentified neighbor or transient.
• They urge listeners to reckon with how little is factually knowable—how court verdicts, media narratives, and real truth rarely align in criminal justice.
• The episode, understatedly, is “wholly unsatisfying”—not for lack of rigor, but for being honest in the face of ambiguity. It closes not with closure, but with empathy for the families and a warning about the human craving for answers where maybe none can be found.

Timestamps for Key Segments:

• [03:34] — New DNA revelations and implications for Jesse's confession
• [07:36] — Walkthrough of major alternate theories/suspects
• [18:05] — "If the West Memphis Three did it": motives and hypothetical narrative
• [29:41] — Evidence For and Against guilt (detailed breakdown)
• [49:07] — Brett's personal theory and explicit “innocence” take
• [61:26] — Alice’s theory: reluctant prosecution, but no legal case for guilt
• [90:43] — Debate: When and why victim’s clothes were removed
• [100:31] — Closing thoughts on the emotional dimension and unresolved nature of the case

For further documents and evidence files referenced, check their website: prosecutorspodcast.com

Listener Invitation: The hosts encourage listeners to share their own reasoned theories: “If you want to try and convince me, feel free to send me your best arguments for why the West Memphis 3 are guilty…disagreement is great, it’s the spice of life.” ([93:59])

This summary captures the core insights, arguments, and emotional undercurrents of this monumental, thoughtful episode—an exceptional resource for anyone seeking an honest grappling with the West Memphis Three case.