Talk:West Memphis Three/Archive 4

add Mr. Misskelley's mugshots?
I was curious what Misskelley looked like (I'm like a shark after mullet... ha ha, it's a fish and a haircut!) Anyhow, I googled it, and found a picture already uploaded to Wikia, can it be added to this page? though the filename missspells his last name ha ha nice, my captcha to post was "crazytruck"! 96.224.42.141 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a large category of such "mug shots": Category:Mug shots, and there are already two in the article, so it appears there is consensus to use such images, and CBS uses the same images: . If deciding to upload, I suggest you follow the layout in File:BALDWIN Booking.JPG.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011
Please correct the incorrect information regarding Jessie Miskelly. Miskelley did not confess after a "12 hour interrogation" but rather a mere 2 hours into his interrogation. 2 hours and 12 hours is quite a large difference and is an important distinction when referencing police coercion, exhaustion, etc. It is important to note his confession came 2 hours into his investigation; not 12.

Aef126 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) The source given says that it was 12 hours. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011
Please delete "Misskelley was questioned for roughly twelve hours; only two segments, totaling 46 minutes, were recorded". Misskelley was not questioned for twelve hours before he confessed and the total time he was interrogated was much less than twelve hours. The reference for the inaccuarate information is not a primary source. Reference: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html

Adawson84 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have amended the article to read "reported"; however, the 12 hours is reported by many reliable sources, and the only sources I have found to dispute this do not provide any evidence - they simply assert an unsourced timeline. This is the strongest argument I could find:, and while it says - "The timeline for Jessie Misskelley’s confession on June 3, 1993, is well-documented." - it does not provide any documentation for the timeline. The callahan.8k.com source (which has been examined several times and is felt to be unreliable) also does not provide a reliable source for its timeline. If a reliable source can be given for the length of time Misskelley was questioned, that would be useful.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request on January 8, 2012
Under 10.3, the Damien Wayne Echols section, there is a small typo in the second sentence of the first paragraph: "On August 19, 2011, Echols, along with the two others collectively known at the West Memphis Three, were released from prison after their attorneys and the judge handling the upcoming retrial agreed to a deal."

"...collectively known at the West Memphis Three..." should read "...collectively known as the West Memphis Three..."

71.184.93.113 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, cheers.  tomasz.  14:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

add “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” nominated for Academy Award in 2012
add code:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” was among five documentary features to be nominated for an Oscar in the 2012 Academy Awards ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.83.220 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about the West Memphis Three, not the documentary. The requested info has already been added to the documentary page diff. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

add info about Devi's Knot becoming a film, recent cast updated, film start date annoucned
UPDATE (February 1, 2012): Deadline Hollywood is reporting Colin Firth has signed on to join Reese Witherspoon to co-star in Devil’s Knot, based on investigative reporter Mara Leveritt’s 2003 book Devil’s Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three, to be directed by Atom Egoyan (The Exorcism Of Emily Rose). Colin will play private investigator Ron Lax who offered his services for free to the defendents in 1993 and who helped find the DNA in the knots that bound one of the victims that cast suspicion on the stepfather of one of the 8-year old murdered boys. Filming begins next summer in Louisiana, and other big names are expected to join the cast in smaller roles.

http://www.thedailytruffle.com/2012/01/west-memphis-three-documentary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.98.89 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

west memphis three
i did a research paper on the west memphis three for my english class and ended up learning alot. i think alot of people can really learn alot about the west memphis three as well. i knew about the case prior to the paper and i already thoguht they were innocent, but i never realized how flowed the case really was. I think that everyone that has heard about the story should read this page and keep an open mind. (24.163.44.34 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)) J. Whitt

How long is this going to be locked? It's ridiculous how long this has been locked for. --74.240.225.38 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Background
Can we have something about the backgrounds of all these people - prior charges etc. - including on the victims families. References to this were made in the movies, and apparently, based on my reading of the archives, used to be here, but were removed, maybe so as to not bad mouth victims ("Murdred child's parent was convicted of..") - understandable, but also eliminates any reference to the 'look over there' use of other potential suspects, surely a horrible thing to do to an innocent victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.145.4 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV?
This looks like Henry Rollins (the noted legal "scholar") was the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.201.211 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
This article needs more information on the other side of the story, and some changes to the categories listed at the bottom - all of which imply guilt. Given that there are plenty of sources to reference indicating the high likelihood that this was a miscarriage of justice that should be addressed in the spirit of providing a balanced portrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged 12 hour interrogation of Miskelley
according to this timeline by the West Memphis PD it wasn't 12 hours: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html I am planning on correcting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.75.248 (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Untying the Knot
I am Greg Day, author of the book Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three. The article here has two inaccuracies:


 * The book is not "forthcoming", but has been available since May, 2012.
 * The book is NOT a defense of John Mark Byers, as the article states. It is the STORY of Mark Byers, the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is a balanced account, the first and only one of its kind.

Thank you.

Greg Day [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygc1465 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably "forthcoming" was written before May. —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Echols correction of sorts
"In an interview with Piers Morgan, he stated that he would like to have a career in writing and visual arts."

Echols says here (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13813/Life+After+Death.aspx) after 40mins that he would like to open a small meditation center. Doesn't mention writing/arts.--184.21.215.174 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Is Echols on anti-psychotic drugs now? Because he seems very lucid and intelligent etc, unlike the description of young Echols that makes up the bulk of his section.--184.21.215.174 (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Echols changes his story a lot, like the numerous and conflicting alibis he provided. 76.173.168.186 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Investigation
I was under the impression that this article was about the whole incident and not just another venue for fans to proclaim their innocence. This is as neutral as a any of the WM3 documentaries that were made.76.173.168.186 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"rarity" of Alford plea
I removed the characterization of the the plea deal as "rare" since wikipedia's own entry on the Alford plea states that 17% of inmates in US states were sentenced under such pleas (without commenting on how many others who were not imprisoned also used such pleas). While such pleas are somewhat rare in federal cases (5%), this is hardly the case in state jurisdictions. [| List of U.S. states by Alford plea usage] shows that the use of such pleas is allowed in 47 states, US federal district courts, and all eleven federal circuit appeals courts. Only Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and military courts under the UCMJ do not allow them.--SEWalk (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Damien Echols lives in New York City
according to his website:

http://damienechols.com/history

I'm not confirmed so I can't edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldmroberts (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Info box
This is locked so I am unable to ass the content box at the bottom.--67.84.73.254 (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: It was unknown during trial that Terry Hobbs was the last person seen with custody of the victims during the investigation and trial.
I believe thatthe sentence " The boys were allegedly last seen together by three neighbors, who in sworn affidavits told of seeing them playing together around 6:30 pm the evening they disappeared, and saw Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Stevie Branch, calling them to come home." under "the Crime" should say, "" The boys were allegedly last seen together by three neighbors, who in sworn affidavits told of seeing them laughing and playing together around 6:30 pm the evening they disappeared, and saw Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Stevie Branch, calling them to come home. Though this was never admitted into evidence and was unknown until 15 years later when the affidavit were made in October of 2009 after the neighbors realized Terry Hobbs denied ever having seen the children the day of the murders". It should be clear that was never mentioned in the investigation or any of the trials because the neighbors were never questioned by the police in conjunction to the original investigation or crime.  The affidavits were made when neighbors ( Jamie Clark Ballard, her mother, and sister) realized that Terry Hobbs denied ever seeing the children the day of the murders after he was questioned during his defamation lawsuit against Natalie Maines in 2009. SOURCE, http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:new.  In my opinion the way it is worded and presented would leave one to believe it was a known fact in the crime/trial but in fact was not. (sorry for any confusion or if i sourced anything incorrectly. This is my first talk edit or first time to source and I am still not completely sure of the educate I should be using) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobSkeezy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New movie?
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/reese-witherspoons-devils-knot-propels-mystery-of-west-memphis-three-case-1200601705/

“Devil’s Knot,” starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth, explores the legal trappings that led to the conviction and eventual release of “Satanic” teens Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jesse Misskelley Jr., while shedding some insight as to who might be responsible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.222.196 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Callahan.8k
Why is www.callahan.8k.com not considered a reliable source?

Callahan's is a collection of documents and trial transcripts. It is used by both supporters and non-supporters. It's even the source quoted by wm3.org when they need a copy of a document or to quote someone from the trial. There is no opinion on site. They (the people that run the site) post nothing except documents. There is no commentary.

Please consider changing your stance and allow Callahan's to be used. If Devil's Knot (which is full of factual errors) can be allowed as a source, why not the actual case documents?

Thank you for your time.

68.207.179.58 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Callahan, but personally, I fully support and advocate the use of court documents as sources for wikipedia. When I write crime articles about cases I'm familiar with, I find the news articles are like 85% accurate. Court documents, however, are almost always accurate and should be used extensively to assure that the article is as accurate as possible. One way around this is to simply cite the specific court document without providing a link in the citation. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia. Another article I did, I wanted to cite the arrest warrant but the copy I found was a xerox of it found on an advocacy site--otherwise not considered a reliable source. I ended up citing the arrest warrant without the link, but then putting a link to the document in the external links section just in case someone wanted to view it. Bali88 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I found no info to support that the content at the callahan site is reliable. See WP:SOURCE.  The "credits" are anonymous email or login names.  The contact info is only first names and email addresses.  The website provider (freeservers.com?) also has no apparent editorial review over what is posted. While it's clear that you believe the site includes unaltered court documents, there's little to back that up. —ADavidB 17:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What specific court documents are you trying to cite? For what information? Bali88 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt replies.

Bali88- There is a comment above (that I didn't write) that says this: "I was under the impression that this article was about the whole incident and not just another venue for fans to proclaim their innocence. This is as neutral as a any of the WM3 documentaries that were made."

What I'm wanting to do is just that. I'm concerned with the neutrality of this article. While you said "When I write crime articles about cases I'm familiar with, I find the news articles are like 85% accurate." I would disagree with you and I warn you that if you ever decided to study this case and compare news articles to court documents your percentage would drop significantly. Mine fell into the single digits. Hence why I asked for callahan.8k to be reconsidered as a source. I need a way to combat what I (and others like me) consider propaganda, not fact.

ADavidB- My only disagreement with your paragraph was this statement: "While it's clear that you believe the site includes unaltered court documents, there's little to back that up." As I stated above this site is considered to be factually correct by both sides of the argument. WM3.org uses this site. WM3truth.com also does just to give you two examples of people who do and don't support Echols/Baldwin/Misskelley.

Both sides of the argument argue this case on the web on message boards, Facebook, and the comment sections of news articles. Both sides use Callahan. In all honesty, someone using anything else to support their argument (ex. Devil's Knot) is looked upon as less than trustworthy simply because Callahan is considered the gold standard when it comes to this case. After reading your explanation and your link I understand as to why it isn't considered a source though I disagree with it. It doesn't exactly make sense how someone (Mara Leveritt for example) can write a book with factual errors in it and it be ok'd while something that has only documentation and no opinion isn't good enough for Wikipedia.

Bali88 (again)- To answer you question on specifics, they fall into 2 categories:

Neutrality- If you look under both the "Evidence and Interviews" section and the "Trial" section you notice there is little to no evidence cited that points at all to guilt. There's no mention of witnesses claiming to have heard Jason and Damien bragging about the killings, no fiber evidence, no mention of the knife found in the lake behind Jason's trailer, Damien getting caught lying on the stand about his alibis, witnesses putting Damien near the crime scene on the night in question covered in mud, the boys were tied with 3 distinct knots, Jessie's alibi witnesses being discredited... and I could go on and on. However I can't prove any of this without the trial transcripts.

Untruths- Like the lack of evidence pointing to guilt, there are numerous things in here that are at the least questionable and at the worst fabrications that no one is able to discredit without trial transcripts. Jessie wasn't interrogated for 12 hours. He didn't immediately recant. His father knew where he was and that he was being questioned and for what. The sighting of Terry Hobbs being the last to see the 3 victims alive is questionable on multiple fronts. Jessie's IQ is also questionable. Baldwin was a 'D' average student (that's not "high grades" where I come from). The description of "Mr. Bojangles" omitted an important detail- he had a cast on one arm. All of this provable by trial transcripts or police reports.

So if I read your first comment correctly, the best way to do this is to use Callahan.8k on the external links site? Or am I going to have to come up with something different.

And again... to both of you... thank you for your time and patience. 68.207.197.0 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that this site should not be used here. We have no way to independently verify the documents and we have no idea who is responsible for the website. We stick to what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources (WP:RS). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as using it in the external links section, I wouldn't do so unless I was pretty darn sure it was a legitimate document. In the cases where I did that, it was a source I was familiar with and I was familiar enough with the case to know that they were genuine document. If you tell me what specific court documents are being sourced and for what pieces of information, I can probably help you. As big as the case is, we should be able to find the documents elsewhere as well as other sources to support those facts. :-) Bali88 (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stepsister
Amanda Hobbs is Stevie Branch's half sister, not his stepsister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermali (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Corrected to "half-sister." I done know why so many people mix up step- and half-.  Thanks for catching this!   History Lunatic (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Why is none of the evidence against the defendants even mentioned in the article, particularly in the subsection headed 'Evidence'?
Absolutely none of the inculpatory evidence against these three men is even mentioned in the article, least of all in the section labelled 'Evidence'. All that is indicated, obliquely, is that one defendant "implicated" the other two. Surely it is relevant to say in what respects these men were "implicated" in an article which purports to tell what happened. But, no, none of the evidence pointing towards guilt is even mentioned in the article. One has to go to the courts reports and various news sources to find this out. Wikipedia is silent. Even though a New York Times report of the first trial is cited, its key factual details are not. As that article notes, "Mr. Misskelley told the police in two tape-recorded interviews that he had watched as his two friends beat the boys, raped two of them and castrated one. The prosecution said the slayings might have been part of a Satanic ritual." This is why these three men were convicted of murder. But there is nowhere in the Wikipedia article on their cases that you can find this out. The quoted matter from the Times should be the topic sentence of the 'Evidence' subsection. Yes, there are many qualifications and contra-assertions to be made. But first the reader needs to be told what the evidence against the men actually was rather than just telling the reader why the evidence was, from various viewpoints, insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.30.66 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe this is entirely reasonable. Would you like to add the content? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Misskelley's confession was not introduced as evidence in the Echols/Baldwin trial, so how could this be the basis of their conviction? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You should start with the expert on Satanic Ritual Abuse who got his degrees from a mail-order diploma mill. LamontCranston (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Does Anyone Have Any Information Concerning An Alleged Homosexual Motivation?
I read a site that stated the police believed that it was possible the killers were engaging in homosexual acts in the wooded area when they were caught by the boys. The murders may have been an attempt to silence the boys and prevent them from telling of what they saw. The site claimed that the police believed Damian, Jason and Jesse were indulging in group homosexual sex when the boys accidentally came across them. I discount this as all the boys are clearly heterosexual. However, I find it interesting that Chris Morgan admitted to participating in homosexual sex, even admitted he hung out with gay people, but denied he himself was homosexual. I believe this is interesting because this type of sex in the woods or out of the way places, properly referred to as "cruising", is a practice mostly associated with closeted gay guys, guys who would not want their identity made known. Morgan left town a few days after the murder and went to California. He was arrested and took a polygraph and failed it. At one point during his interview he stated it was possible he sodomized and killed the boys during a black out. He later recanted. If anyone can provide any evidence that the police believed the killers were engaging in homosexual sex, with the boys accidentally discovering them and then subsequently murdered to keep them from telling anyone, I think it might be a valid line of questioning that could shed light on the motivation, despite who truly murdered the boys.BoyintheMachine (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Aren't two people claiming thats what they were doing with Hobbs and Jacoby when the boys found them? LamontCranston (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Lots of stuff is missing from this article!
1.Why is it that there is nothing written on here about the TONS of blood found at the crime scene using LUMINOL? 2.Why is it not mentioned here that blood of one of the boys that was murdered was on Damiens necklace ( but not used as evidence at trial)? 3.Why is is not mentioned that the bruise on one of the slain boys was not caused by a bite mark, it may have been caused by Damien's knife that was found ( the end of the knife had a compass on it that left the imprint. The compass was missing from the knife when it was found)?

These few factors are very important peices of information and should be added.

Also, Damien said he would " go down in history as the boogie man". I think this statement itself is chilling.

Peace out!

204.99.118.9 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have reliable sourcing for that information, be our guest, add it and source it! Be bold!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you might be a new editor. It would perhaps be a better idea to put the sources on the talk page, we can go over them, and look at it. This is somewhat of a controversial article, it might be better to discuss them here first. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor Typo
Sorry if this is not the place, but it won't let me fix a minor typo in the article. In the section "Echols's and Baldwin's trial" the word the is misspelled as just "th": "However, th prosecution claimed that Echols's knowledge was nonetheless too close to the facts" Rikemiley (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)rikemiley, 2/13/2015


 * The downside of semi-protection is that it's sometimes a hindrance to legitimate editing. I took care of the typo; thanks for pointing it out.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect description and incorrect and missing facts

 * Under the heading Jessie Misskelley the sentence reads that "Misskelley, who has an IQ of 72, confessed to the murders, and implicated Baldwin and Echols." In this interview Misskelley did not confess to the murders, but only stated that he was at the scene and caught one victim and left. The sentence should read "admitted to being at the scene during the murders and stated that he had only caught one victim and left. Misskelley implicated Baldwin and Echols during the interview." Reference http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html

Additionally Misskelley did confess two times on February 8,17, 1994 to his attorney On February 8, 1994 and to prosecutors February 17, 1994. I believe this should be added after the first paragraph and read something like this "On February 8,1994 Misskelley had been convicted and his attorney Dan Stidham arranged a meeting with MissKelley. During this meeting Jessie Misskelley confessed and gave details unknown at trial and admitted to involvement in the murders.(Reference  http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html ) On February 17, 1994 Misskelley met with prosecutor Brent Davis and again confessed. (Reference http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html )

The entire article seems to have a slant that the 3 are not guilty and evidence of their guilt seems to be avoided. I thought Wikipedia was unbiased and just presented the facts. The fact that MissKelley confessed after the trial to his own attorney without police presence seems quite important to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo Laranja (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article does have issues -- mostly relating to redundancy, and conflicting information from conflicting sources -- but IMO bias is not one of them. It documents the evidence for and against their guilt. It documents both their assertions of innocence and the fact (which they acknowledged) that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict them. The references you cite are primary sources, which we try not to rely on here because they nearly always force editors to draw their own conclusions, which is a basic WP no-no. If you have secondary sources documenting the changes you wish to make, please cite them.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you are saying about Callahan.8k site. It is an unedited fact gathering site. These are transcripts from the actual police reports and trial transcripts. The confessions are unedited and the Callahan.8k site has no conclusions. The only way to have secondary sources would be to go to the actual police reports (which are copied on the site). Any further sources would be gathered from callahan.8k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo Laranja (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please sign your notes with four tildes, as explained on the bottom of every page when you are in edit mode, so that we'll know with whom we are dialoguing. Second, please read WP:PSTS, which explains in detail the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and why the absence of conclusions in primary sources is problematic for WP editors.  By drawing your own conclusions you are doing original research, which is not allowed here.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry I thought I signed with the 4 tides. This is my first time discussing changes. You are correct that I do not understand the primary secondary and tertiary source. I will be unable to help the page factually because of the "conclusion" from primary source requirement. I guess I do not understand how I drew a conclusion but am even more confused that you would want secondary sites to use conclusions. It did not seem that is what you proposed in your original message to me. OK I was just trying to have the site be factually correct as that Misskelley did not confess pre trial but did confess post trial. The page seemed to either intentionally or unintentionally be leaving out facts of guilt that are well established concerning confessions after conviction.Ronaldo Laranja (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It takes a while to get the hang of proper procedures around here -- we all went through it when we first started. You certainly have the correct goal (making the article factually correct), and that's a good thing.  The internal article I mentioned above, WP:PSTS explains in detail why any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. If you still have questions after reading that -- plus the rest of that article (WP:No original research) -- one or more of us will be happy to try to answer them.  Following WP procedure takes a bit more time and effort, but it will ensure that the factual information that you add to the article does not get reverted for lack of proper sourcing.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I believe I have what you say is required

Here is the reference to Misskelley's interview with no confession on June 3 1993 from a secondary source http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-myths-and-facts/

Here is the confession to Dan Stidham on February 8, 1994 from a secondary source http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-dan-stidham-february-8-1994/

Here is the confession from Misskelley on February 17,1994 from a secondary source http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-february-17-1994/ Ronaldo Laranja (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These are blog posts. Self-published media are usually not acceptable as WP:RS, unless produced by an established expert on the subject matter (see WP:SPS).  However, some of the sources used by that blogger, and linked at the top and sides, could be legitimate secondary sources.  You're getting closer!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I can't help but point out that an earlier thread (recently archived) was started by someone upset that "exculpatory evidence" had been left out of the article; and now we have a complaint that "evidence of their guilt seems to be avoided." Same article!  This is yet another demonstration that "neutral point of view" = "my point of view" for many editors.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?
I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the particular case of this article, I see no reason why the source should not be used. It is not used in the main narration of the events, it is stated that the book does not cites any supporting evidence, and it is only mentioned in an appropriate section of the article. --Legion fi (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why would you consider adding it? What good is that? Current consensus at RSN is that it is unreliable and I will be removing all references to this book.
 * I see no consensus on the RSN. I would suggest a per article discussion like this one. In fact, in this case, it adds to due weight. The mention is minimal. And it serves the encyclopedic purpose to show that other stuff exists. I'm keeping the source in this article. Please let further discussion to happen, both in this talk page and in the RSN. Thanks. --Legion fi (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You will need to join that discussion then because we aren't going to do this on every page. Ask others in that discussion if there is a consensus. I contend that there has been a promotional push and possibly a paid editor to get this included. Are you one of them? Because for the life of me I can't understand why someone would want to add this nutty work.
 * I thought consensus was pretty clear at RSN; the book fails WP:RS, so it shouldn't be cited as a source. Do we really have to go through this exercise on each article's talk page?  My understanding was that that was the whole reason for bringing it to RSN - to consolidate the discussion.  Can we at least agree that the last sentence in the paragraph, about other murder accusations in the book, is completely irrelevant to this article?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am responding per notice at WP:RSN. I agree that consensus indicates Cameron's book is not a reliable source. There is no need to open discussion on every talk page . - Location (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I did not include that paragraph into this article. @BereanHunter: please assume good faith, and check the history of the article before making personal attacks as the one you are throwing at me. I have had the article on my watchlist for a long time, and your initial post on the talk page brought me to it. Then I reverted your edits to the article because I considered they were not discussed enough. I haven't posted on the RSN because I do not have time to make an extensive post as it should on a discussion that may affect such a large number of articles. I will try to take some time and make such post.
 * Furthermore, I think @DoctorJoe suggestion is very reasonable. I will readd the paragraph, and remove the other murder accusations. --Legion fi (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been no personal attacks and you clearly misunderstood 's question, I believe. You will need to garner a consensus to re-add any mention of the book, and frankly it isn't up to you that in your opinion it hasn't been discussed enough but you haven't had the time to deal with it. You need to refrain from adding anything back while we are discussing.

Admission about an attempt to remove an eyeball
"Echols denied allegations that he had chased a younger child with an ax, but did admit to attempting to remove a classmate's eyeball and while detained reportedly sucked blood from another boy's arm"

This does not have any citations.

Looking on the internet, I found the following http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/oct/07/memoirs-missing-element/

"Witnesses gave a far different account. Interviewed by police, the rival said Echols threatened to kill him and cut another "into pieces and bury him'' if he interceded. Echols attacked the youth from behind and tried to "rip his eyes out'' with long fingernails he'd filed to points, the report said. Echols denies that, yet clinician notes from Echols' mental health records say he reported multiple school suspensions for fighting, including one in which he claimed he "almost gouged out the victim's eyes."

As you can see, Echols actually denies it. He did not admit to it. Maybe the line should be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutsandgears (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 June 2013‎

Impartiality
While there may be debate regarding confessions and admissions, to place those words in quotations is a bit impartial.

For example:


 * Critics have also stated that Misskelley's "confessions" were in many respects inconsistent with themselves and the particulars of the crime scene and murder victims, including (for example) an "admission" that Misskelley "watched Damien rape one of the boys."

The words confession and admission are not quotes in this sentence, making it appear that the author of the edit was judging the veracity of the confession and admission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiEr (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on West Memphis Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6809923
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120608082830/http://www.johnmarkbyers.com:80/Introduction.html to http://www.johnmarkbyers.com/Introduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2016
The last paragraph of subsection "Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley" under the section "Suspects" contains the sentence: "At his death penalty sentencing hearing, Echols' psychologist reported that months before the murders, Echols claimed that he had obtained super powers by drinking human blood.[20]" However, this sentence is slightly inconsistent, grammatically, with the source ( http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-02/features/9610020073_1_victims-families-damien-echols-devil-worship/2 ), which reads: "... Echols' death-penalty sentencing hearing in which his psychologist reported that months before the murders, the defendant had claimed that he obtains super powers by drinking human blood."

The proposed edit would change the article sentence FROM "... Echols claimed that he had obtained super powers by drinking human blood..." TO "... Echols had claimed that he obtains super powers by drinking human blood."

108.101.30.63 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: Change of category
Article should be moved from Category:Satanic ritual abuse in the United States to Category:Satanic ritual abuse hysteria in the United States, cause there was no evidence found that SRA was involved.

(Category:Satanic ritual abuse in the United States sounds like a category for cases of SRA which actually happened in the U.S.) -- Rachel Summers (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
This whole article looks like it was written only to show their innocence. For example, the section on Misskelly's confession is completely wrong but would easily be corrected using the readily available case documents that are online. Jessie Misskelly was picked up by the police at his father's workplace, his father knew he was being interrogated and he signed a waiver for the polygraph. There is also evidence to contradict the "12 hour" interview.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/suppressionhearing.html

http://callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/miranda_waiver.JPG

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/jmtimelog.html

In the article it says that Jessie Misskelly was "scared of the police", if you read the transcript it was saying he WAS scared of the police AFTER the murder, not durring the interview. He also agrees that he was treated well. Lice138 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Greetings! I've written or modified very few articles on Wikipedia and I hope I'm on the correct page or section.

I clicked an existing link listed in the References section. It's footnote 43 - Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417 - When I clicked on this link, I was taken to - Misskelley v. State, 2010 Ark. 415 - instead (URL - http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=50543&dbid=0). The correct URL to Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417 is (http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=50532&dbid=0).

Baldwin v. State, 2010 Ark. 412 - URL - http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=50524&dbid=0

Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417 - URL - http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=50532&dbid=0

Misskelley v. State, 2010 Ark. 415 - URL - http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=50543&dbid=0

I do not know how to correct this link, but I wanted to inform the writer of the article of this error. |needhelp=

Thank you for this valuable article.

Starsmark (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Source
Hello! While going through your sources, I noticed that this one in particular took me to a page that said the article you referenced could not be found:

Beifuss, John(May 9, 1993). "Pain tells how much life 3 slain boys had". commercial appeal.com. Retrieved October 13, 2011.

Other than that, I thought the article contained most of the known facts on the case. I think most points were covered in depth and evenly as well. Thank you for the great article!

DevinBradley9 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I've added an archive link for the source you mentioned whose original link had died. —ADavidB 00:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)`

Need more eyes at Murder of Hae Min Lee
Widely-read article desperately needs more watchers.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request
Reference 46 goes to a dead link (Arkansas Times article on Hutchinson recantation.) The following link seems to work for the indicated reference: https://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/complete-fabrication/Content?oid=18861072604:6000:1401:80B8:7414:7A25:D25A:4CAF (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I checked out the link you provided and updated the article accordingly. Thanks! —ADavidB 15:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Damien presented Art at Day for Night Festival In 2016. The "Crimson Lotus" art installation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C180:EF50:D43:A02:8C86:12BE (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, the link for Reference 33 is dead and should be re sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.182.47.97 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Archive (and author) information is now added to this source citation. Thanks. —ADavidB 13:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021
Add to Mr. Bojangles: "Mr. Bojangles" reportedly wore a "blue cast type brace on his arm that had white Velcro on it." which would have made it difficult to tie up and murder three young boys.

Source: Linder, Douglas O. "Who Killed the Three Boys?" Famous Trials, https://famous-trials.com/westmemphis/2247-whokilled. Decayingfigs (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * [This information was added to the article on 1 December by the requester. —ADavidB 15:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)]