West Memphis Three Revisited

[Julian the Apostate]

He conducted the polygraphs of whom, I wonder?

I wondered that as well. I haven't found any details on it yet however.

Damien Echols currently lives in Salem Massachusetts (of all places!)

Yes, quite deliberately, and some of his neighbors are not happy about it: http://www.salemweb.com/discus/messages/13750/43690.html?1360772904

I read on one of the forums that Misskelley has had trouble already with DV allegations, but I can't find any press reports about it.

I have no doubt that due to his high profile, Echols will be welcomed into one group or another providing outlet and cover for his proclivities, if they still exist.

SHhhhhhhh.

I have always sympathized with Echols, partly because when I first saw paradise lost I was young and impressionable and I also slightly identified with them in a general kind of way...I loved Metallica at the time lol. I thought they were innocent and that the crazy stepfather of one of the boys (forget his name) did it, which PL suggested and also the whiz criminal investigator that someone posted about earlier in the thread seems to think that too (I assume that is the person the article refers to but doesn't name when it says he thinks he knows who did it). But there is also some evidence, much of it circumstantial, that suggests they did do it. If they did, in the manner described, I would think there would be a great deal more physical evidence tying them to the crime. But we will probably never know for certain, and life goes on... In any case, those poor boys...

[Fresno_Layshaft]

I went out to see "West of Memphis" tonight. I was impressed with it. It was very thorough and clean documentary.

I have to say if you can watch that film and still believe the murders had anything to do with the occult and satanism, other agendas must be clouding your vision. There is literally nothing satanic or ritual about the crime scene or the cause of death (drowning). There's no symbols, overt or hidden that indicate the killer(s) had any intentions other than killing one or all of the children quickly, cleanly and brutally. So I ask you Willow, where do you see the "SRA" in the crime scene? If you watched WOM, (which you stated you will not) you would see a very clear debunking of the so-called sexual mutilation injuries, as caused by small predators after death. If you take away the mutilations, what do you have left? Jail house snitches and school yard innuendo... Death row, with that?

If they were guilty, and the evidence was there- why in hell would they set them free with the Alford plea, before the case got retried? The most obvious answer is the state knew the case was so flimsy it wouldn't stand and the WM3 would walk and the State would be sued millions of dollars. They had them in prison for years. They didn't have to let them out.

[Project Willow]

I went out to see "West of Memphis" tonight. I was impressed with it. It was very thorough and clean documentary.

I have to say if you can watch that film and still believe the murders had anything to do with the occult and satanism, other agendas must be clouding your vision.

Last night I watched an old episode of the X-Files. I want to believe. The moving pictures are a powerful medium. Give me a Hollywood budget and the support of numerous, wealthy celebrities I can make an innocent victim out of the most craven of violent criminals, or the opposite. I don't even need a movie actually. Debbie Nathan went to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, read all of Flora Shreiber's records of the Sybil case there, and managed quite successfully to invent an entirely new narrative about that case which is now consensus reality. Nevermind that the last thing someone perpetrating a fraud would do is leave all records of it available to the public at a college of criminal justice, where she once was an instructor. People want to be titillated by scandal, and they want to believe in things that validate their world views, as you seem to think I'm doing here, only I'm not looking at defense generated movies, I'm reviewing case and trial documentation.

I also don't contend that the murders were SRA. I agree with this profiler's analysis of the case:

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2010/03/dont-free-west-memphis-three.html

The crimes were committed by more than one person.
The offenders lived nearby the crime scene.
The boys were targeted because they were easy to access and control.
The boys were probably followed and conned or lured into the woods.
The boys were overpowered by larger assailants and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.
The crime was planned but not in the sense that it would necessarily end with homicide. Like wilding, crimes involving groups of young teens often end extremely violently.
Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience.
The offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.
The crime was violent and was a show of power. Essentially, it was a thrill crime.

Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away? Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence and no evidence of the bindings being on a live body for any period of time), who was unaccounted for at that time? The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth. The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders.

I do contend that because satanism was associated with the case, due to the behavior of the main suspect, and because untrained authorities mistakenly made and propagated that association, it grabbed the attention of powerful forces. The FMSF network then sent in their operatives to debunk it, as they were doing all over the country with SRA related cases at the time, hence the involvement of Richard Ofshe with the defense.

There is literally nothing satanic or ritual about the crime scene or the cause of death (drowning). There's no symbols, overt or hidden that indicate the killer(s) had any intentions other than killing one or all of the children quickly, cleanly and brutally. So I ask you Willow, where do you see the "SRA" in the crime scene? If you watched WOM, (which you stated you will not) you would see a very clear debunking of the so-called sexual mutilation injuries, as caused by small predators after death. If you take away the mutilations, what do you have left? Jail house snitches and school yard innuendo... Death row, with that?

As to the genital cutting, if we are to believe that highly paid defense expert, who never examined the bodies, but made his assessment via photos, then either Misskelley was able to predict this post-mortum predation, or his knowledge of the crime is truly the smoking gun of their innocence, as he must have been fed the information. But I don't buy that, I say he was able to identify which boy was cut and where because he witnessed it. Byers' cause of death was battery, the other two drowned.

If they were guilty, and the evidence was there- why in hell would they set them free with the Alford plea, before the case got retried? The most obvious answer is the state knew the case was so flimsy it wouldn't stand and the WM3 would walk and the State would be sued millions of dollars. They had them in prison for years. They didn't have to let them out.

Extreme public pressure created by the documentaries and the advocacy of celebrities who poured millions into the defense pool, and a new prosecutor who stated that he had not even read all of the case files before agreeing to the plea deal. There were appeals in the cases post conviction where the evidence was reviewed, and the convictions were upheld.

I am more than happy to argue the case with anyone who takes the time to read through the documentation available at http://www.callahan.8k.com/, but I won't argue the case based solely on multimillion dollar propaganda. I certainly can't argue against belief.

[Project Willow]

Echols seems to agree with the profiler I quoted above.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien2.html

22 Q. Question number 11, "How do you think the person
23 feels that did this?" The answer was, "Probably makes
24 them feel good, gives them power." Now, I guess
25 Officer Ridge said that, too?
2817

1 A. No, I used common sense on that. If someone was
2 doing it, then they must have wanted to. And if they
3 were doing something they wanted to, it must have made
4 them happy. I don't think they were doing it because
5 someone forced them to or because they didn't want to.
6 Q. So in your mind the person that killed these three
7 kids, it is common sense that killing three
8 eight-year-olds would make you feel good?
9 A. Whoever did it, it must have.
10 Q. Okay. And it gives them power. That's also
11 another common sense perspective from you?
12 A. Pretty much.
13 Q. Now, when you say, "gives them power," is that
14 based on what you have read in these books?
15 A. No, it had nothing to do with that, just the crime
16 itself.
17 Q. Killing three eight-year-olds gives you power. I
18 don't understand that. Explain that to me.
19 A. They probably thought, well, that they were like
20 overcoming other humans or something.
21 Q. Now, on question number 19, he asked you, "Had you
22 ever wondered what it would be like to kill someone
23 even if you didn't go through with it?" And your
24 response, did you respond by saying, "Gosh, I never
25 thought about killing anybody?"
2818

1 A. I don't remember what I said.
2 Q. Did you tell him you never thought about killing
3 people?
4 A. I don't remember.
5 Q. The response was -- let's see if I can read your
6 writing --
7 MR. PRICE: Judge, we object, your
8 Honor. That is not my client's writing.
9 MR. DAVIS: Okay. Your Honor, I can't
10 read Officer Sudbury's writing.
11 Q. You responded to him that whatever you do can come
12 back to you three times over?
13 A. Three times as bad or as good.
14 Q. And where did you get that statement? That was
15 your remark, right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Is that something that you learned when you were
18 practicing to be a Catholic?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Where did you pick that up?
21 A. I don't remember. I guess I've just heard it all
22 my life.
23 Q. Now, Officer Ridge has that when you were asked
24 these questions that you say, "It was a thrill kill."
25 Is that your words?
2819

1 A. He asked me what did I think could be the possible
2 motivation.
3 Q. Okay. And you indicated a thrill kill, is that
4 right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Or a satanic act?
7 A. Right.

[8bitagent]

I would recommend anyone with an interest in the case watch West of Memphis. I'm not convinced Hobbs was involved either, as much as some try to paint that. It's one of those mysteries.
However it's interesting how they shine a new light on a lot of things. And while I dont see an occult link to the crime, I do believe sometimes cops can fudge evidence/be super sloppy and yet the accused
still be guilty(such as what many believe OJ to be) I guess I would be more agnostic now on the WM3 case.

[Fresno_Layshaft]

Last night I watched an old episode of the X-Files. I want to believe. The moving pictures are a powerful medium. Give me a Hollywood budget and the support of numerous, wealthy celebrities I can make an innocent victim out of the most craven of violent criminals, or the opposite. I don't even need a movie actually. Debbie Nathan went to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, read all of Flora Shreiber's records of the Sybil case there, and managed quite successfully to invent an entirely new narrative about that case which is now consensus reality. Nevermind that the last thing someone perpetrating a fraud would do is leave all records of it available to the public at a college of criminal justice, where she once was an instructor. People want to be titillated by scandal, and they want to believe in things that validate their world views, as you seem to think I'm doing here, only I'm not looking at defense generated movies, I'm reviewing case and trial documentation.

Like it or not, "the moving pictures" are a huge part of this case. And ignoring them, is ignoring fundamental threads of the story. It would seem to me that if you were actually interested in learning everything you could about the WM3, watching all 4 documentaries would be the logical first step into understanding the entire cultural milieu of this disturbing crime.

The notion that two separate camps of filmmakers set out to produce "propaganda" pieces to free guilty child murders from prison is preposterous. Why would Peter Jackson want to free child murderers? Does he seem like he's in the pro-child killer camp to you? Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are respected filmmakers, who've shown little enthusiasm for child murder in the past. So what was motivating them to make these films that make "innocent victim out of the most craven of violent criminals"? It doesn't make any sense.

The Paradise Lost films were made over a period of nearly 20 years. To dismiss the 1000's of hours of work and investigation that went into them is as slick Hollywood showmanship is pretty disingenuous to say the least. Its no less valid than researching for 20 years and writing a book. Its actually much more difficult.

[compared2what?]

I agree with this profiler's analysis of the case:

.


There's room for disagreement, though. Lots of it. But just for example:

The crime was planned but not in the sense that it would necessarily end with homicide. Like wilding, crimes involving groups of young teens often end extremely violently.

"Wilding" is a phrase that owes its association with the violence of teen criminals to having been used to make the mundane, aimless, spur-of-the-moment acts of mayhem and assault committed by the kids who were WRONGFULLY convicted of raping the Central Park jogger sound more menacing. One could even say "racially menacing."

It's not a real phenomenon attesting to real ultra-violence by teens. In short.

Besides which, I have no idea what that sentence even means. Violent crimes are violent, no matter who commits them.

Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience.

Or a penchant for knives. Or an opportunistic killer who happened to be armed with a knife. Or any number of other things.

It's not even all that certain that a knife was used at all, though. Two of them drowned.

The offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.

Again, I have no idea what that even means. How does this profiler know that evidence that wasn't there got washed away, rather than wasn't there?

The crime was violent and was a show of power. Essentially, it was a thrill crime.[/list]

Agree, due to the hog-tieing, and their ages. But that doesn't do much to narrow the field of suspects.

Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away?

Potentially, every adult male who lived near the scene, at a minimum.

Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence and no evidence of the bindings being on a live body for any period of time), who was unaccounted for at that time?

Lots and lots and lots of people, many of whom are undoubtedly utterly unknown to everybody, including the cops. But there are also those two drug-dealing youths who high-tailed it to the west coast right after the crimes, For example.

The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth.

Half of that (the part about the inexperience) is one of the standard pieces of received wisdom about serial killers developed and propagated by the FBI's Behavioral Science guys. But this profiler's kind of misapplying it. It's only meaningful if there are two or more crimes with an escalating pattern of elaborateness wrt stuff like staging, sadistic violence, planning, etc. that shows the perp is learning as he goes.

I don't know about the other half. I've never heard that it was a sign of youth. Properly speaking, it's atypical (though not unheard of) for sadistic sex killers to get started in their youths anyway. The whole thing might be a moot point, though. Because...

[/b]The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders.[/b]

...it's not clear that this was (or wasn't) a sadistic sex crime. And that website's penchant for continually asserting that it was without acknowledging that there are other options or explaining what makes them less credible doesn't exactly cover it with glory. I mean, at least the people who argue the other side of the case present the evidence against and then dispute it.

....

Ofshe might have been pursuing some other piece of skull-duggery altogether, for all anyone knows.

As to the genital cutting, if we are to believe that highly paid defense expert,

The prosecution's experts were also paid for their opinions.

who never examined the bodies,

Sadly, the only people who ever examine the bodies are employees of the state, not all of whom are virtuous, wise and talented.

[quotebut made his assessment via photos,[/quote]

As people in that line of work on both sides of a case very frequently -- even routinely -- do with very little sacrifice of confidence when it comes to stuff like wounds, assuming the photographs are adequate/ So that's not actually a point against anybody's opinion, in and of itself. Is there any particular reason you find it likelier or more credible that they were knife marks than that they were signs of small animal predation?

[quote]then either Misskelley was able to predict this post-mortum predation, or his knowledge of the crime is truly the smoking gun of their innocence, as he must have been fed the information. But I don't buy that, I say he was able to identify which boy was cut and where because he witnessed it.[quote]

Why?

[compared2what?]

Speaking of which, I forgot to say earlier:

As to autopsy reports, how did Misskelley know which boy had been cut and where?

Maybe because the cops told him at some point during the hours that weren't taped. Because unless you can somehow rule that out or have some reason to think that they were extra-non-aggressive and scrupulous cops, it's a very real possibility. Also:

Misskelley also confesses to his attorneys on June 11 which is documented in the rule 37 hearing transcript, again in other meetings, and yet again in Feb., 1994. He also confesses to two deputies after his conviction.

He was under a lot of pressure from LE to do that.

Misskelley's police car confessions led to one of the most audacious incidents in the case. The prosecution tried to arrange a deal with Jessie, to reduce his sentence in exchange for his testimony in the upcoming trials. First, they met with Jessie's lawyers. They remained unconvinced. While it might be in Jessie's best interest to testify in terms of a reduced sentence, Stidham believed in his client's innocence. He could not suborn perjury. The prosecution pleaded with Jessie's father to convince him with the same lack of success.

A head-on assault not working, the prosecution proceeded to talk to Jessie without his lawyers' consent. After some preliminary interviews, the police transported Jessie from his prison to a jail in Corning to be nearer to the upcoming trials. There, another taped interview was planned. Dan Stidham later stated he learned about the transfer on the evening news. Together with his law partner Greg Crow, they rushed to Corning to intervene on behalf of their client. They insisted their client not make a statement. Stidham called Judge Burnett at home to stop the proceedings or to delay it until Misskelley had a psychiatric exam that had been requested earlier in the week. Burnett described receiving the call. "Y'all were asking me to make a ruling from my den where I was watching TV in my underwear." [Judge Burnett, February 22, 1994 Hearing]

On Thursday evening, February 17, 1994 Jessie's next taped confession began with admonitions from his lawyers.

Crow [echoing Dan Stidham]: Jessie. You realize that I don't always agree with everything that Dan says but this time I agree with him. I don't think you should say anything. [Misskelley taped confession, February 17, 1994]

The confession took place at the office of Joseph Calvin, deputy prosecuting attorney for Clay County. Prosecutor Brent Davis undertook most of the questioning with Calvin adding several questions.

Excluding procedural matters, Jessie made 193 responses to questions*. Again, the interrogators spoke the majority of the words, 2593 to 1449 words from Jessie. Ninety questions were yes/no, 53 requests for details and 32 were open ended. The open ended questions often took the format "What happened next?" [*These statistics are based on the official transcription presented here. There are errors in this transcription. Questions that were repeated were sometimes left out.]

Unlike the June 3rd taped confessions, Jessie often responded he did not remember (16 instances). This may have been due to the increased time that had passed or because Davis specifically phrased questions asking whether he remembered.

More here.

It's a factor. And it's also probably worth noting that after Echols and Baldwin were convicted, LE stopped having a reason to pressure Miskelley. And he stopped confessing.

So there's that.

[compared2what?]

I agree with this profiler's analysis of the case:

.

I didn't realize that was Pat Brown. She may have her good points, I don't really know. But she's got some problematic ones, too.

[Project Willow]

Like it or not, "the moving pictures" are a huge part of this case. And ignoring them, is ignoring fundamental threads of the story. It would seem to me that if you were actually interested in learning everything you could about the WM3, watching all 4 documentaries would be the logical first step into understanding the entire cultural milieu of this disturbing crime.

If you'd read this thread, Fresno, you'd know that I have indeed watched the first two PL docs and that I once shared your view.

The notion that two separate camps of filmmakers set out to produce "propaganda" pieces to free guilty child murders from prison is preposterous. Why would Peter Jackson want to free child murderers? Does he seem like he's in the pro-child killer camp to you? Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are respected filmmakers, who've shown little enthusiasm for child murder in the past. So what was motivating them to make these films that make "innocent victim out of the most craven of violent criminals"? It doesn't make any sense.

The PL filmmakers deliberately spread lies about the case. Example one is Misskelley's interrogation. Why they did this, I do not know. The other celebrities who came on board for the defense did so after watching the documentaries. As far as what I can glean from conversations with some of them, they haven't bothered to research the case beyond how the filmmakers framed it.

Echols, in his many tv appearances, continues to lie about details in the case.

[Fresno_Layshaft]

Like it or not, "the moving pictures" are a huge part of this case. And ignoring them, is ignoring fundamental threads of the story. It would seem to me that if you were actually interested in learning everything you could about the WM3, watching all 4 documentaries would be the logical first step into understanding the entire cultural milieu of this disturbing crime.

If you'd read this thread, Fresno, you'd know that I have indeed watched the first two PL docs and that I once shared your view.

The notion that two separate camps of filmmakers set out to produce "propaganda" pieces to free guilty child murders from prison is preposterous. Why would Peter Jackson want to free child murderers? Does he seem like he's in the pro-child killer camp to you? Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are respected filmmakers, who've shown little enthusiasm for child murder in the past. So what was motivating them to make these films that make "innocent victim out of the most craven of violent criminals"? It doesn't make any sense.

The PL filmmakers deliberately spread lies about the case. Example one is Misskelley's interrogation. Why they did this, I do not know. The other celebrities who came on board for the defense did so after watching the documentaries. As far as what I can glean from conversations with some of them, they haven't bothered to research the case beyond how the filmmakers framed it.

Echols, in his many tv appearances, continues to lie about details in the case.

Why do you think that two different groups of filmmakers would produce documentaries and advocate for convicted child murderers if they didn't believe they were innocent? That's all I would like to know.

You started off the thread by asking "...why did the HBO film makers portray the case the way they did?". The simplest answer to that is that they genuinely thought they were witnessing injustice. Do you think at some point they discovered that the WM3 were indeed guilty, and continued to advocate for them anyway- for 20 years? I'm just having difficulty understanding why you think the films are propaganda. There are bound to be some inconsistencies and small mistakes in PL and WOM, but how do you get from that, to be believing they are propaganda efforts to free known satanic child murderers?

And I didn't mean to imply you hadn't seen PL, I just assumed that you hadn't seen PL3 or WOM. That was my mistake, sorry.

[Project Willow]

^ I've witnessed, over these last 20 years or so, individuals and organizations commit an enormous amount of time and resources to spreading and reinforcing the perception that SRA isn't real. The WM3 case, regardless of its actual nature, plays a crucial role in those efforts. I have plenty of evidence about what motivates some of these individuals and organizations. Sometimes it is directly related to covering-up criminal activity, sometimes it is a purely emotional endeavor to maintain a worldview, or block out horrific memories. These activities contribute to what I term the real satanic panic, a social process at work to keep the existence of SRA from being acknowledged. It is possible the filmmakers are simply caught up in this process, or they are motivated more directly, I do not know. That is something I plan to research.

[Project Willow]

Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience.

Or a penchant for knives. Or an opportunistic killer who happened to be armed with a knife. Or any number of other things.

It's not even all that certain that a knife was used at all, though. Two of them drowned.

It argues against this being a ritual killing, in the traditional sense, which is why I quoted it in response to Fresno, and I'm going to argue knife over snapping turtle in any case.

Lots and lots and lots of people, many of whom are undoubtedly utterly unknown to everybody, including the cops. But there are also those two drug-dealing youths who high-tailed it to the west coast right after the crimes, For example.

You mean the two who were held and interrogated in California for 17 hours, one of whom was Chris Morgan who spent May 6 with the Hobbs family (the very opposite of fleeing the scene), and whose real false confession contained errors about the injuries to the boys that Miskkelley got right, and whom the police considered seriously until their alibis later checked out completely?

...it's not clear that this was (or wasn't) a sadistic sex crime. And that website's penchant for continually asserting that it was without acknowledging that there are other options or explaining what makes them less credible doesn't exactly cover it with glory. I mean, at least the people who argue the other side of the case present the evidence against and then dispute it.

Bruising and mutilation in the groin area, dilated anuses. What website? Supporters are the ones lacking evidence for their theories.

Ofshe might have been pursuing some other piece of skull-duggery altogether, for all anyone knows.

Oh, please.

The prosecution's experts were also paid for their opinions.

Sadly, the only people who ever examine the bodies are employees of the state, not all of whom are virtuous, wise and talented.

Where's your evidence they either deliberately or mistakenly messed up in this particular case?

As people in that line of work on both sides of a case very frequently -- even routinely -- do with very little sacrifice of confidence when it comes to stuff like wounds, assuming the photographs are adequate/ So that's not actually a point against anybody's opinion, in and of itself. Is there any particular reason you find it likelier or more credible that they were knife marks than that they were signs of small animal predation?

All the other evidence and testimony about the use of a knife in the case. The lack of snapping turtles in that particular gulley when investigators were all over it, and sandbagged and drained it. The short amount of time the bodies were in the water. The absurd idea that only the testicles and skin of the penis would be consumed, and only on one particular boy, the one who Misskelley identified as being so altered, for starters.

Autopsy report: Some of these wounds showed hemorrhage in the underlying soft tissue, others did not. In between the thighs there were multiple areas of yellow abrasions with skin slippage. The medial aspect of the left thigh showed a yellow abrasion.

But I don't buy that, I say he was able to identify which boy was cut and where because he witnessed it.

Why?

Because for as often as it is proclaimed that police coerced Misskelley and unfairly targeted these particular young people, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT. There is evidence that police and authorities, while certainly not perfectly, handled this case in a reasonably fair and competent manner, considering the extreme nature of the crime, and the highly charged atmosphere.

[Project Willow]

Maybe because the cops told him at some point during the hours that weren't taped. Because unless you can somehow rule that out or have some reason to think that they were extra-non-aggressive and scrupulous cops, it's a very real possibility.

It is a possibility, but other factors argue against it, including the timeline of the interrogation, the lack of other outward signs that police approached him with the intent to arrest, let alone, coerce a confession, and Misskelley's IQ, which although it may lend support to the idea he is easily influenced, doesn't argue well for his ability to regurgitate "memorized" details over and over again.

He was under a lot of pressure from LE to do that.

That deal wasn't in offer the first, second, or third time he confessed, which was to his attorney.

[Fresno_Layshaft]

^ I've witnessed, over these last 20 years or so, individuals and organizations commit an enormous amount of time and resources to spreading and reinforcing the perception that SRA isn't real. The WM3 case, regardless of its actual nature, plays a crucial role in those efforts. I have plenty of evidence about what motivates some of these individuals and organizations. Sometimes it is directly related to covering-up criminal activity, sometimes it is a purely emotional endeavor to maintain a worldview, or block out horrific memories. These activities contribute to what I term the real satanic panic, a social process at work to keep the existence of SRA from being acknowledged. It is possible the filmmakers are simply caught up in this process, or they are motivated more directly, I do not know. That is something I plan to research.

Well, fair enough. But I do think you're barking up the wrong tree regarding the WM3. If you do find some specific information regarding a cover-up involving the filmmakers, it would be a huge story. Make sure you can back up your claims with hard documentation.