OpWM3: An Overdue Call For Justice


Written by: Anon DiVinci


In 1993 the case that has become known as The West Memphis Three, rocked the country.  The bodies of three 8 year old boys; Steve Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers were found unclothed, hog-tied and submerged in a creek, in a wooded area known as “Robin Hood Woods.”  Three teenages; Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr, who many believe to be innocent of the crime, were charged, convicted and sentenced for the murders.  Baldwin and Misskelley were sentenced to life without parole, while Echols was sentenced to death.


Due to what seemed like, mutilation to the bodies, police quickly determined that the murders were occult related, referring to them as “satanic” in nature.  While a list of suspects was gathered, focus was quickly aimed at 18 year old Damien Echols.  This happened after the police asked a local juvenile probation officer for a list teenager who he thinks may have occult ties.  The probation officer compiled the list and took it upon himself to point the finger at Echols as the most likely suspect.


While there was no evidence to tie Echols to the crime, the police began compiling a list of people who knew Echols.  One of these people was 17 year old Jessie Misskelley Jr.  Misskelley was brought in for questioning.  What followed is what some have called a travesty of the judicial system.  Misskelley, considered to have a below average IQ and “border line mentally disabled,” told the police that he was unaware of the crime or who could have done it.  The police continued to question Misskelley for hours until they received a confession.  However, audio and transcripts of the confession make it very clear that while Misskelley was indeed confessing to the crime, he did not know any of the details of the crime.  Some say the questions are leading and guiding Misskelley to the answers the police were looking for.  Within the confession, Misskelley implicated not only Damien Echols but also 16 year old Jason Baldwin.


Misskelley was tried first and the prosecution used his confession to win the conviction.  When Misskelley’s attorney questioned the officer on the stand, about the inconsistencies in the confession as well as the complete lack of knowledge Misskelley had about the crimes…The officer stated “Jessie just got confused.”  Misskelley was sentenced to life without parole.


Both Echols and Baldwin were tried together in a separate trial.  The prosecution made every attempt to get Misskelley to testify (including offering lower sentencing) against Echols and Baldwin, but Misskelley refused, stating that he refused to lie about them.


With nothing connecting any of the three to the crime, the prosecution presented Echols’ proposed religious beliefs, clothing style and books read by Echols as evidence.  While they presented circumstantial evidence against Baldwin as well, he was primarily tied to the crime primarily by Misskelley’s false confession and his friendship with Echols.  While the prosecution did bring in witnesses to testify against Echols and Baldwin, these witnesses later recanted with affidavits and admitted to lying.  Baldwin received a life sentence and Echols received a sentence of death by lethal injection.


Over the course of 18 years, appeals were filed by the attorneys of all three.  The appeals went to the desk of the original presiding judge and were denied each time.  It is important to note as well, that during this time the injuries to the bodies that were initially believed to be mutilation, and were the deciding factor in why the police considered the murders to be “satanic,” were proven by expert pathologists to be post mortem animal predation.  This means that while the bodies were lying in the water, animals began feeding on the bodies.  Removing these injuries as “satanic mutilation” also removes the reasoning for which Echols was suspected in the first place.


After multiple denied appeals, the case went in front of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court made the decision that the trials were mishandled.  They granted the appeal and permitted all evidence to be admissible.    It was then presented to elected county prosecutor Scott Ellington.  Ellington determined that even with all of the evidence admissible, there was not enough evidence or witnesses left to have a new trial. The option of a rare plea bargain, called an Alford Plea, was then presented as an option.  An Alford Plea is a plea bargain that essentially allows the subject to maintain their innocence, while signing on paper that they are guilty, in exchange for freedom.  What it also does is protects the state from a lawsuit for wrongful conviction.


During the ordeal and after the plea, there has been other compelling evidence that points to another suspect.  The evidence includes DNA, eye witness affidavits, bite prints and quite a few others.  The state of Arkansas however, refuses to the re-open the case to investigate this other suspect.  While many opinions as to why this may be has circulated, the likely reasoning behind it is that it could nullify the Alford Plea and thus allow the three that were convicted, to sue.  As Ellington implied in his own statement, “I have voters to think about,” meaning it’s likely political.


While this is a travesty all on its own, the real travesty is that there has been absolutely no justice for the three children that were murdered.  Whoever the killer actually may be is walking free to this day.


My interest in this case partially stemmed from the fact that the description of Echols at 18 years old, closely matched my own.  I can easily see myself being in his shoes, because I used to fit that exact profile.  People thought the way I dressed in all black, was weird.  I listened to the same music, and I even had a curiosity with religion and faith.  I think we have all fit the “outcast” profile at one point or another.


On May 5, 2015, a rally for justice in this case is being held in Little Rock, Arkansas.   Since it does not matter what side of the fence you are on, as the most important aspect of this is justice for the children, it is urged than any Anons in the area join this rally for justice.




Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



      • With all due respect while the prosecution has stated that they believe the three are guilty, they took admit to only having circumstantial evidence. So you must be saying that the prosecution also base that on the illusion that the defense has put out? Fogleman admitted that this wasn’t an occult murder but then went into the courtroom and intentionally sold the jury on the fact that it was. They pulled in a pathologist that worked for their office to testify to a lot of inaccurate things that renowned pathologists throughout the country disputed as ridiculous. In fact, it seems as though the only pathologist that believes a knife was used (one of the key pieces of evidence to tie the boys to the crime btw) is the pathologist who works for the prosecution.

        The prosecution then brings in an “occult expert” to label the boys as “satanists.” This so called expert could not even tell the difference between a pentacle and a pentagram and labeled St. Peter’s Cross (a symbol of Christianity/Catholicism) as “satanic.” In fact St. Peter’s Cross originates in the Catholic faith and is only considered “anti-Christian” (not satanic) because the media has pushed it into that realm of belief. None of THIS was an illusion sold by the defense. Then, “witnesses” brought in to testify against the three have since recanted and admitted to lying.

        What this means;
        – The key weapon that the prosecution claimed was used, was proven not to be used.
        – The “occult expert” used to claim the boys were satanic is discredited due to his CLEAR lack of knowledge in the field.
        – The pathologist that testified for the prosecution, not only NEVER passed a state exam in the field, but has been discredited as ridiculous, by literally every other renowned pathologist that studied the case.
        – Many “witnesses” that testified against the three, recanted and admitted to lying, while others are simply illogical.
        – Jessie’s “confessions,” not only violated his rights (since he was a minor without his parents PRESENT or an attorney PRESENT), but also were inaccurate. Every single one of them, including the “Bible confession,” were outright inaccurate in comparison to the actual crime, injuries, crime scene, etc

        Losing these things, the prosecution actually had zero case against any of the three. It means there was no weapon tied to the boys, no physical evidence tied to the boys, witnesses who admitted to lying, no religious ties as “satanic,” hack “experts,” no real confession, no admissible confession….these are all FACTS that weren’t even brought up by the defense.

  1. I am on the rally committee and I will be producing a mini-doc focusing on the supporters of this case. If anyone is interested in being interviewed and sharing their story please feel free to contact me. I am very grateful to Anon for bringing this case back into the light.

  2. Your article is completely one sided and it sounds like you watched one of those ridiculous documentaries then wrote it. Did you actually look into all the facts or the case at all before you made your decision or did u decide after you saw the similarities between you and Echols? That’s it, empathy made you feel bad for them, take their side and forget about the three young defenseless children who were tortured, killed and left like garbage. Sad

    • Your comment is completely one sided and it sounds like you only read the title. If you had read the complete story, you would know that they are only looking for justice for the three children.

  3. Anonymous seem to believe that there is some requirement that there be a volume of physical evidence to convict. That is not only not true, but it is illogical in this discussion. Taking it to the logical conclusion, the boys must not have been murdered at all because no significant physical evidence can be traced to anyone. But we know they are dead. We know they were murdered. So in the absence of the existence of significant physical evidence (the murders occurred in a creek where evidence would easily and quickly be destroyed), we have to rely on other evidence, including circumstantial evidence such as inclination, opportunity, alibi’s or lack thereof, credibility of witnesses, and of course, confessions.

    Which leads us to the NUMEROUS confessions: Jessie Misskelley confessed even AFTER he was convicted and more than one time. Those confessions were more detailed than the initial confession, and one took place with his lawyer present and against the advice of that lawyer. Misskelley had nothing to gain at this point, yet he still told a compelling story that was consistent with the crime scene and other evidence. In one of these confessions, Jessie described one of the boys “wiggling like a worm” after being dumped alive into the water with his hands and feet tied. That kind of description isn’t something that an alleged borderline dolt conjurs up on the spot, but it is very much the sort of thing that a person who was there would describe when recounting his memory. In short, he described it that way because he was there and even in his limited capacity, he was able to draw that analogy because that is how he perceived it when it happened. That was not suggested to him, he offered it out of the blue while recounting what he saw. WM3 supporters always want to gloss over these subsequent, voluntary confessions in opposition to his own lawyers advice.

    Add to this Echols violent and psychiatric history with urges to suck blood, torturing of animals,death threats to his parents and several other people, Jessies easily lead rage and need for violence (documented in PL), Jason as the “follower” to Damiens “alpha”- behaviour, lies on the stand, polygraphs failed, bragging about the murders, witnesses that did NOT recant (yes: a family who saw Damien and his girlfriend that night near the crime scene did NOT recant, neither did the softball- girls, neither did Carsson, he just said he was “sorry”, and strung out on drugs at the time, although in PL he seems straight enough, whilst in “West of Memphis” (supposedly claimed from supporters as “recanting”, he seemed high..

    Conclusion: Anonymous have not done their homework in this case.

  4. There are several false and misleading statements in this article.

    “While the prosecution did bring in witnesses to testify against Echols and Baldwin, these witnesses later recanted with affidavits and admitted to lying.”

    None of the witnesses who testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial have ever recanted in an affidavit. Supporters and non-supporters have squabbled over whether or not the statement by Michael Carson (who testified that Baldwin confessed to him) in West of Memphis is a recantation, but he has never recanted in an affidavit. The only witness to recant in an affidavit is Victoria Hutchinson, and she did not testify in the Echols/Baldin trial. Besides Hutchinson and Carson, no witness has ever recanted, neither in an affidavit nor informally.

    “The Supreme Court made the decision that the trials were mishandled.”

    This is blatantly false, and anyone who took a few minutes to read their opinion would know that their decision had nothing to do with how the trial was handled. In fact, in 1996 the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and upheld all the decisions made by the judge at trial. What the Arkansas Supreme Court decided was that new DNA evidence was enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing. This was not to be a retrial, but rather a hearing to look at all evidence and allow a judge to determine if a new trial should be granted.

    “The option of a rare plea bargain, called an Alford Plea, was then presented as an option.”

    It should be noted that it was the West Memphis Three, and not the state, who came up with and presented the option. This is after the Arkansas Supreme Court handed them a victory by granting the hearing. Instead of presenting their evidence, they offered to plead guilty. Their motives for presenting the plea is debatable, but anyone who wishes to approach this case with an open mind should be aware of that fact.

    “the injuries to the bodies that were initially believed to be mutilation, and were the deciding factor in why the police considered the murders to be “satanic,” were proven by expert pathologists to be post mortem animal predation”

    This has never been “proven.” The opinions of experts, however renowned, are not “proof.” Experts will often disagree, and their opinions are simply pieces of evidence for a neutral fact finder (a judge or jury) to consider along with all the other evidence. Since the WM3 chose to plead guilty rather than go forward with their scheduled evidentiary hearing, we will never get a proper forum to examine these claims.

  5. I can only encourage anybody interested to PLEASE spend time watching the original videos, and reading the evidence. It is clear that the huge injustice here is the release of the WM3, not the original conviction. read the facts, and you’ll see that the WM3 are very much guilty, and were released because of hollywood and mainstream media support! Now, is anyone out there enlightened enough to know that both of these entities are not looking for justice? Read the facts, and you will see the truth.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here