Talk:West Memphis Three

First sentence, double meaning?

Find the first sentence; "Three men, subsequently referred to as the West Memphis Three, were tried and convicted of the murders of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas on May 5, 1993", a bit misleading. At first read, I interpreted it as May 5, 1993 was the date of conviction, not the murders. Something to do with my non-native English tongue? Lebaramebara (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it was confusing. I fixed it. Valfontis (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

References formatting problem

References 61 and 62 are spilling out of the column and are over the far right of the page (scroll to the right to see these). I cannot see what the problem is, does someone know how to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Must be something glitching in your browser. Not happening on this end. NJZombie (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Chrome 13.0.782.112 on Mac. Not an issue in Firefox 5.0.1.

Section about families and law enforcement

"The families of the three victims are divided in their opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the West Memphis Three." This is a lousy sentence. If it's true, then the section is willfully ignoring any statement of any family member regarding their guilt. If it is not true, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Article major revision

I hate to be rude, but this article is a mess. I came here to get a run-down of this case, but the article is almost totally incomprehensible. While not the only problem, too much of the article is spent talking about the flaws in the original case and conviction. Of course, the poor nature of the prosecution is what makes the case notable, but before we can offer the critiques, the article needs to state in plain facts what happened during the original trial. Can I propose that the lede gives a full, brief rundown of the whole thing from 1993 to today, but the main article proceeds in chronological order? Ashmoo (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is poorly written. I haven't had time to address this, but feel free to be bold and fix the article as you see fit. Valfontis (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm not sure why my comment on here was removed but I added the date of release to the introduction because it was missing before. - Russell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.10.35 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Exonerated defined

Exonerated means to clear from accusation or blame. When your talking about crime and punishment, it is irresponsible to use the term with such a sloppy literary license as is taken here. I have tried to edit the inaccurate use of this term in the introduction only to see it edited back to an inaccurate use. While I personally believe in the innocence of the WM3, I don't support wild emotion trumping accurate reporting and confusing opinion for facts. Its misinformation at best. DNA evidence cannot exonerate anyone, only the court system can based on evidence (including DNA evidence). I hope the statement that they were "technically exonerated" is removed, because technically and actually, they certainly were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.89.87 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rape evidence

Re: " Police had initially suspected that the boys were raped due to their dilated anuses, but forensic evidence later proved conclusively that the murdered boys had not been raped at all, and dilated anuses were a normal post-mortem condition.[10]"

I did try to improve this but someone has changed it back. "Proved conclusively" - does the reference cited actually use these words and is it an impartial reference? I think it might be more correct to say "there was no evidence of anal rape", which there wasn't - better would be to quote the exact words from expert witnesses detailing the absence of possible signs of anal rape. However: does no evidence mean it didn't happen? Probably but we should only cite experts on this, not guess, and not use populist book sources on such important details. Refutations (if any) should also be mentioned. I should point out here that Echol's defense team *strongly supported* the sexual killing theory in their submission requesting DNA testing, referring to the semen traces on the boy's pants and the possibility that mouth injuries on one of the victims were suggestive of oral rape.199.127.252.195 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed

Misquoting

Article says:

"According to the prosecutors, the DNA results would most certainly allow the men the right to a new trial and be subsequently acquitted."

This is not accurate. That's not what was said according to the reference given. It says:

'.. the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that there was enough evidence to call a hearing to determine whether to have a new trial. The hearing was scheduled for this December." blah

"The prosecuting attorney, Scott Ellington, said in an interview that the state still considered the men guilty and that, new DNA findings notwithstanding, he knew of no current suspects.

“We don’t think that there is anybody else,” Mr. Ellington said, declaring the case closed.

Asked how he could free murderers if he believed they were guilty, he acknowledged that the three would likely be acquitted if a new trial were held, given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses."

So the article should say instead something like:

"Prosecutor Scott Ellington said that, although the state still considered the men guilty, the three would most likely be acquitted if a new trial were held "given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses." He also said that he knew of no other current suspects."

No way is this guy giving the DNA evidence any credence - at least not yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

***Aghhhh!**** Someone has half-corrected this. People please understand this: quotes must be VERIFIABLE. You can't just make stuff up. Accuracy to the source is critical. Don't you actually look at the source? Now it says:

Prosecutor Scott Ellington said that although he still considered the men guilty, he admitted that it would be difficult to retry them if a new trial were held "given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses."

Wrong. He did NOT say it would be "difficult to retry them". He said (word for word):

" ...,.he acknowledged that the three would likely be acquitted if a new trial were held, given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses."

I am correcting this and also fixing the order of sentences in this section.199.127.252.195 (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you actually look at the source? Yes, I did, and my response is "Don't you actually look at THE SOURCES?" That's sources, plural. Other sources make it clear that he believes it would be difficult to retry them. You are missing the forest for the trees by demanding some sort of word for word fidelity to a particular source, especially when this particular source is itself paraphrasing instead of directly quoting. According to this source your "word for word" reading is not, in fact, word for word what the prosecutor said. If a Wikipedia reading is not INCONSISTENT with the source, the more informative and accurate reading based on the totality of sources should be chosen. Sure, you can say, "well then provide additional citations" but my response would be that we have limited amounts of time and footnoting every turn of phrase is, well, a demand that does not accomplish much in the end if the reading is is not going to change. In other words your blanket statement "He did NOT say it would be 'difficult to retry them'" is essentially false, since he is on record in other sources saying "practically impossible" to retry them. Wikipedia is ultimately responsible to the SOURCES not a particular source, which might not provide the full picture.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Description of bindings wrong?

"They were stripped naked and had been hogtied with their own shoelaces: their right ankles tied to their right wrists behind their backs, the same with their left arms and legs .."

But the victims' arms and ankles were not behind their backs, were they? They don't look to be in Paradise Lost. From http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/topic,2983.0.html :

"They were not tied in the way that you are thinking. They were tied ankle to corresponding wrist. If you sit in a chair and drop your arms down, then tie a shoestring from your left wrist to your left ankle and do the same with the right, that will give you an idea of how they were tied."

It also appears (but I'm not certain) from Paradise Lost that the victims' wrists were tied to their thighs as well as ankles. This positions the arms at the sides not behind the back.199.127.252.195 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone pls clarify/reference this? 199.127.252.195 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible teeth imprints

Besides Byers, Terry Hobbs also had his teeth removed sometime after the murders. When I stumble across the reference again I will add this or someone else can. As I recall forensic experts for the defense didn't think that there were any human bite marks on the victims.199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Byers Teeth Extraction

Having worked with disabled adults receiving State Medicaid(Medicaid the insurance of last resort) I can attest that the only dental benefit provided was teeth extraction. My understanding is that if a person has severely infected or decayed teeth the collective bad bacteria can cause systemic sepsis, a blood poisoning. http://www.advertisingcrossing.com/article/170042/Left-untreated-tooth-decay-can-take-a-life/

Thereby, if Mr Byers had decayed teeth, was receiving AK “Medicaid” due to low income or disability his only option to control his dental disease and save his health may have been extraction. Even with Company insurance most likely there was no dental plan, again, leaving extraction as the least costly and most viable option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.110.235.223 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

More misquotes and wrong citations

"Supporters petitioned the Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe to pardon Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley based on the DNA. Beebe denied the request but promised to reconsider once the DNA testing is complete and points to another suspect[citation needed]."

Where the **** is this from? Please don't add crap unless you can cite where it is from.

What I found was this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/west-memphis-three-pardon_n_934437.html Here the Governor says he won't consider a pardon until the sentences are served (meaning another 10 years of probation) by which time he will be gone, and that he won't consider a pardon unless evidence clearly points at another perp.199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"He said that if the DNA points to another suspect, he will fully exonerate them and pursue the other suspect." Where did he say that? Not cited. Nothing of the sort in the Associated Press article 8/25/2011. What he *did* say, which is in no way the same thing, was:

Ellington said he does not plan to reopen the case, but was willing to consider any compelling evidence that was presented and screened by defense attorneys.

"I believe that these three men are guilty, but I will receive evidence that is presented by the defense team once they go through that," Ellington said.

199.127.252.195 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also

"As part of the plea deal, they can not pursue civil litigation against any of the police officers or prosecutors involved in their case and they can not make money off their story.[not in citation given][56]"

I suspect this comes from somewhere else. The reference given (http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/08/articles/attorney/civil-rights-1/west-memphis-three-wrongful-imprisonment/) is a legal discussion that suggests they *can* sue though it could be very difficult. 199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article is too much the product of Mara Leveritt's particular point of view. There is no exhonerating DNA evidence. There may be no incriminating DNA evidence, but that means only that there cannot be a conviction on that particular evidence alone. There is no mention at all in this article of the incriminating fiber evidence. The article barely hints at the fact that Echols is a chronic liar, and how questions about Echols' honesty were high up in the minds of the jurors. He told reporter George Jared of the Jonesboro Sun that he he had been “repeatedly raped after family visitations and forced to perform sex acts with guards" while in custody. Not just a problem with a rogue guard, but a penal system in general that LITERALLY rapes him. Really? On the stand when confronted with his past remarks he said the interviewing police officer's recounting contained multiple "lies." He's telling the truth, but the police are liars, OK, possible, but then Misskelley's confessions are also lies? Misskelly recants his original confession, claiming it was the product of police coercion, and then six months later he confessed a SECOND time in much greater detail to the police in the presence of his attorney and against his attorney’s advice? Echols' confession with earshot of Jodee Medford and Christy Van Vickle at the softball park are not mentioned at all in this article. Were those two subject to police pressure as well? When questioned about what the girls claimed to have overheard Echols' response was, "I might have said it, but it wasn’t because I did it. I was a teen-ager. People were saying a lot of stuff about me. I might have said it joking around." Who jokes about something like that when it is all too plausible given a history of violence (like when he tried to claw the eyes out of classmate). Echols' interests and behavior were in fact more disturbing than just black metal, and he doesn't seem to understand how that's an issue. He told the Jonesboro Sun that one of his first trips after being released from prison is to go to Salem, Mass to celebrate Halloween. He blew a kiss to the victims' families a day after being arrested. Most people who have seen film from the time find his behavior unsettling. It is easy to second guess the jurors without their first hand experience of the accused's testimony. If Echols is telling the truth, there are A LOT of liars out there out to get him, from testifying police to Misskelley to to the softball game girls and on. We are supposed to believe that and that the REAL killer is Mark Byers , Terry Hobbs, or Mr. Bojangles. Yet law enforcement never suspected those guys enough to do more than a cursory investigation.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All of what you say is reasonable, but the talk page is for discussing the article, not arguing whether the WM3 are innocent or not. Please feel free to include the above into the article (with the appropriate sources, of course). Ashmoo (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't "reasonable". At a single glance, this textual hit job points out some severe issues: First of all, Echols didn't listen to "black metal". Second, "confessing at earshot" is just a biased way of saying "someone claimed", and this is in the face of recanted confessions where police pressure was admitted. Third, his "interests"—you reporting a desire by Echols to go to Halloween in Salem, Mass. after returning as an example—are "disturbing", and somehow have a bearing on any of this? That sounds an awful like the crooked Arkansas cops who were responsible for this mess to begin with, and does no one any good, including anyone attempting to bring together this (admittedly terrible) article. I can go further with this, but there's no need to; either get some solid (and I mean solid) references somewhere stating these positions, or take your witch-hunt to a personal blog. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox-I understand your anti-witchhunt sentiments, however each of your comments regarding "black metal","confessing at earshot", recanted or coerced confessions, and crooked Arkansas cops, are clearly off topic and are threaded with the very same extreme bias you accuse other users of.

I am sure several contributors would be more than willing to have continuing discussions with you in a different forum to debate for example, the use of coercion or complete lack thereof in Jessie's Feb 17 1994 confession, but this page is not the place. This is a hard topic not be emotional about, but attacking others on a personal level in the creation of this article is strongly discouraged,while open discussion and reasoning is strongly encouraged.Opticks3 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment, which can be summed up as: comment with accuracy in mind or don't comment at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate interpretation of Byers Autopsy Findings

Byers was the only victim with drugs in his system; he was prescribed Ritalin[10] (methylphenidate) in January 1993, as part of an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatment. (The initial autopsy report describes the drug as Carbamazepine.[12]) The dosage was found to be at sub-therapeutic level,[12][citation needed] which is consistent with John Mark Byers' statement that Christopher Byers may not have taken his prescription on May 5, 1993.[citation needed]

Ritalin is a psychostimulant medication used to treat ADHD in both children and adults. Carbomazepine is an anticonvulsant drug manufactured as the brand name Tegretol used to treat multiple disorders including mood disorders and seizure disorders.

The phrase "The initial autopsy report describes the drug as Carbomazapine" suggests that the findings are simply using "carbomazapine" interchangeably with "Ritalin". This is further suggested in the phrase "which is consistent with John Mark Byers' statement that Christopher Byers may not have taken his prescription on May 5, 1993".

It was stated that Chris Byers was prescribed Ritalin while it was referred to multiple times that John Mark Byers was prescribed Tegretol . The finding of carbomazapine and not methylphenidate is a very distinct fact from the fact that it was a sub therapeutic saturation. 75.40.77.221 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Plea deal

"The plea deal caused outrage in the supporters and people who believe in their guilt"

Surely "innocence"? Orphan Wiki 08:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Anybody??? It's still unsourced and STILL looks a bit wierd, in the way I mentioned above. I'll remove it if it's not looked at soon. Orphan Wiki 09:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the intended interpretation is that those who believe in guilt wanted to see them stay in jail rather than be released. Hence, outrage on both sides. Having said that, it's an unsubstantiated generalization and thus should go. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Victims

I know this is a hot topic, but please at least ATTEMPT to keep the information neutral. THIS IS NOT THE PAGE TO ARGUE THE CASE. This section is NOT about the victims, it is about the possibility of each of their parents or step parents being potential suspects and highlighting the past of each to insinuate the motive each one could have had in the murder of their own children. ALL of this information needs to be either moved to a Section titled "Other Suspects" or removed.

The real victims of this crime can't even get enough dignity and respect to be described as the innocent, 8 year old, best friend boy scouts that they were before they were murdered. I am going to edit this section for the above reasons and anyone who disagrees with me better have some VERY exceptional reasons for including all of the above referenced garbage about the parents, or debt, or Terroristic Threats, or Grand Theft?......REALLY?...in this section!

What I saw in the "Suspects" topic regarding the three who were convicted of murder described high grades, talent for sketching, graphic design, etc. These are the types of descriptions that need to be used when referencing the three young victims brutally killed in this crime.

Opticks3 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Numerous Edits by Opticks3

Recently Opticks3 (talk · contribs) has added a wave of additions mainly from this site, which is not a reliable source because it's someone's personal website and there's no way to verify all of the material presented. Further, the user also made a point of attempting to connect Echols with Satanism by employing this ridiculous website as a refernce, which includes gems like:

When President George Bush talked of 1,000 points of light, he was speaking in code about this place of initiation for the highest initiates of the Satanic pyramid. In this Satanic cathedral is the throne of the high priestess of the upper hierarchy, a position known as the Queen Mother.

Right. Editors, please keep your eyes open to further attempts at adding misinformation and general nuttery to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If "Free The West Memphis Three" qualifies as a verifiable source......Certainly callahan.8k.com does as well. Please note the ref link below.

ref name="wm3Burk">Sauls, Burk. "Case Synopsis". Free the West Memphis Three. Archived from the original on June 23, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2007.</refOpticks3 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Callahan8 is one of the most non biased sources for information regarding this case. The documents referenced on that website are court/medical documents or direct transcripts thereof directly related to this case and presentedin an unbiased manner to the reader.

I challenge those who question the linked documents to provide as evidence the personal bias that they claim is within the linked documents, and I will be more than happy to reevaluate the use of and links to those documents.

I would find it very hard to argue that the use of and links to a website titled "freethewestmemphisthree" or similar sites are neutral and unbiased in their content.

The references to callahan.8k.com are at the very least as verifiable as those references to pro west memphis three websites.

I will not argue the removal of the link to http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret15.htm.

I will find a more suitable link or leave the content off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticks3 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Opticks3 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I could not agree more. I implore the senior editors from wikipedia to closely watch this entire page as it has been populated with extremely biased content that has been placed in inappropriate location. (Please see the previous content in "Victims" section.Opticks3 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To those contributors who take the time in their day to find and add content to this page- Wikipedia is a fantastic endeavor that allows us to share content that is relevant and informative. It is not a repository for personal opinion or emotion. Contributors to this page have been allowed to infuse their personal bias in the content they share with little or no corrective action. I have read several comments on this talk page referring to this page being a mess and off topic.

I will edit any content that I view as being inappropriate or not relevant to the section in which it is placed and I will provide my reasoning behind the edits. I will also repeatedly undo changes that are done simply because someone “wants it that way” or took personal the changes that were made and not explained. I am always open to discuss any edits or questions others may have for me.

Additionally I expect others to review and consider the content that I contribute to ensure those same standards are met.

I will continue to maintain and edit the position and content of the “Confessions” topic as well as the content in the “Victims” topic for reason already explained on this page.

Again, if anyone has reasoning they would like to share with everyone that is counter to my reasoning for the changes, please include that in this Talk page prior to continually editing the page.Opticks3 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that wm3.org is not a neutral source, and inappropriate for use here under most circumstances. However, some anonymous website (callahan8) is certainly acceptable under any condition, no matter what it claims to offer. As a result, I've removed links to both websites. Please stick to information from reputable, verifiable sources, such as published material and from news sources. We are here to report. Further, please do not spam the talk page with a thousand posts in a row; condense it into one section if possible and you'll have a much easier time if you keep the formatting legible. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

While we are on this topic, Leveritt doesnot qualify asan unbias source. This source is largely opinion based and should be removed from every instance of occurance in this article. If Leveritt is deemed a reliable source, there are countless authors that can be referenced that show bias on both sides of this case.Opticks3 (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, all references from ANY HBO documentary should be removed right away as those are obviously opinion based.Opticks3 (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that you've just restored all callahan.8k.com and, bizarrely, wm3.org links. Presumably this is because you want to retain information connected to them. However, it does not help the quality of this article to add information without reference; as with anywhere else on Wikipedia, all added information–especially when living people are involved–requires a solid reference in place. Again, you need a neutral source from a reputable, verifiable source, preferably published. A published journalist on this material, Leveritt's work may be cited as long as it's done appropriately ("according to Leveritt...") and as long as Leveritt's opinions are not given undue weight by being spread all over the article (i.e. keep it condensed in a single paragraph). In addition, any information using a documentary as evidence does need to be pulled, but I do not see any. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Leveritt is published has nothing to do with the fact that the references pointing to her work,are referencing opinion based material. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of people who have been published that we can then pull in as a reference. "Crimes Involving Satanism Or The Occult" might make a nice reference when explaining the West Memphis Three and how this crime is Satanic in Nauture. BTW-I do not endorse that belief, however once the door is opened to use published journalist, it's wide open. I can think of several published journalists who should never be referenced for anything. Leveritt is completely biased and one sided to a degree that does not exist on ANY callahan.8k documents. At least that reference only presents the actual transcribed court document.Opticks3 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Confessions

The multiple confessions of Jessie Misskelley are extremely relevant to this page as they lead to everything that follows in the case.

The timeline of events that lead to the confession is also very relevant as it clarifies the events that took place prior to the confession and sebsequent arrests in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticks3 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Mass Revisions by Bloodofox

Editors-There are several topics that I have been attempting to contribute to that add essential value and scope to this article. Please refer to "Victims" and "Confessions" topic sections both here and on the Article page for a history of these contributions/edits.

The reasoning behind each of the contribution/edits is clearly explained on this talk page, and additionally asks for input or reasoning from others with differing reasoning to discuss on the Talk page.

EXAMPLE 1-Victims A prime example is the "Victims" topic section. Please see my original comments below.

"I know this is a hot topic, but please at least ATTEMPT to keep the information neutral. THIS IS NOT THE PAGE TO ARGUE THE CASE. This section is NOT about the victims, it is about the possibility of each of their parents or step parents being potential suspects and highlighting the past of each to insinuate the motive each one could have had in the murder of their own children. ALL of this information needs to be either moved to a Section titled "Other Suspects" or removed.

The real victims of this crime can't even get enough dignity and respect to be described as the innocent, 8 year old, best friend boy scouts that they were before they were murdered. I am going to edit this section for the above reasons and anyone who disagrees with me better have some VERY exceptional reasons for including all of the above referenced garbage about the parents, or debt, or Terroristic Threats, or Grand Theft?......REALLY?...in this section!"

I have yet to have anyone disagree with my comments or reasoning, and yet bloodofox continually reverts my contributions/edits back to some extremely inappropriate text that basically calls out each of the parents of the children as the potential killers. THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS SECTION> How much more clearly can this be stated?

EXAMPLE 2-Confessions The second example refers to the "Confessions" topic section.

Again bloodofox continually reverts my contributions/edits simply citing the use of callahan.8k.com as reference. PLEASE NOTE: that bloodofox does not REMOVE the content, he simply moves it a different, less appropriate, more confusing location on the page. This section not only warrants a Title position because it is the actual start of the entire investigation into the West Memphis Three, it also add muchneeded value as to the events and timeline of those event that took place prior to and during the confession of Jessie Misskelley that led to his immediate arrest.

I ask that soemone with at least aminimal sense of neutrality assist in this issue to minimize the unnecessary reversions, edits, deletions, but bloodofox.Opticks3 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

wm3.org is very clearly a non-neutral source, and its use is not appropriate. The callahan.8k.com site, however, appears to mostly be a host of primary sources and as such linking to such sources hosted there should be appropriate, provided that they are being used to support claims about the primary sources themselves. For example, if it is necessary to quote report X, then it is fine to link to report X to support that claim. There will be no better source than that. But that does not mean that report X is the truth, and it is not acceptable for editors to analyze or interpret report X. That is the job of secondary sources. There is other material on the callahan.8k.com site which is not appropriate to use as a source, such as the timeline.

Let's take the example of the bloody knife. In the current revision of the article, a picture of the knife is used to support the claim that the knife is manufactured by Kershaw. This is not an appropriate use of the picture, because it requires readers to look at the picture and determine for themselves who manufactured the knife (even though it may appear obvious). As trivial as it may seem, this is an example of original research and demonstrates why primary sources can be tricky to use.

With regard to your concern about the description of the victims: the fact that the victims were Boy Scouts is immaterial to this particular case. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I appreciate your concern that more space is given to the accused than the victims, but the fact is that in the course of justice, state of mind is frequently an important factor and thus does become relevant. Naturally, all such references to the accused parties' interests and hobbies should only be made in light of their potential relevance to the case as shown by secondary sources. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and input. I wish there were more users who would provide input in a neutral manner. Your point that this article is not a memorial for the children is well taken. The Victim information I added was more of an attempt to provide factual information about the children prior to the murders, and I can see how some of the info may be construed as memorial in nature.I will review again and modify anything that leans that way. To your point that it is immaterial to the case that the boys were Boy Scouts, the fact that they were all part of the same Boy Scout troop is of some value when considering what the victims shared in common. While I agree that light should shine on any and all accused parties or suspects in the case, it should shine from a different place in the article. Any state of mind references to anyone but the victims should be contributed somewhere else on the page, possibly under "Other Suspects". Thanks again Orange Suede for your input, much appreciated.Opticks3 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Orange, I must point out that my problem with using callahan.8k.com as a reference is that there is no way to verify the credibility of the site, as though it claims to be a "neutral archive", it is in fact an anonymous website hosting numerous documents that we cannot verify. All of these files are perfectly simple to tamper with (some of them simple .txt documents), and we're just taking the word of an anonymous group on the internet when we use them. Considering that Opticks was using this "Satanic conspiracy" website (sample quote "These sacrifices are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years. The mass sacrifice of people by the Aztecs in Central America, and so many others, were to provide food for the physical reptilians and crossbreeds who eat the bodies and drink the blood, and energy nourishment for the non-physical reptilians of the lower fourth dimension."—!) as a reference before being called out on it here, I urge you to consider the quality of this reference. Again, we have no way to verify the accuracy of this material, and I strongly feel that it fails any reliability test due to the fact that it is an anonymously-made website. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I will remind you that as soon as you pointed out the content on the satanic reference website I removed the reference and link immediately. I will also remind you that I challenged you or other users to find content on callahan.8k that was NOT neutral. I find it absolutely unbelievable that a vast majority of the links on this article reference "Leveritt" as a valid source. We may as well reference Johhny Depp or any other supporter. I am sure there is a unanimous consensus that Leveritt is and has been an open supporter for years. This article will only be neutral once all links and references to her or her writings have been removed. As long as Leveritt is allowed to be refernced in this article, I find it only accaptable that I begin populating the page with information and references to the book "The Blood of Innocents: The True Story of Multiple Murder in West Memphis" by Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia, and Bartholomew Sullivan. I have yet to even read this book, but I understand it looks at the case and facts from a polar opposite position as Leveritt. Becasue it has met bloodofox' criteria for acceptable source, being written by a "Published" research journalist and author, this content should be given just as much validity and credibility as Leveritt content, right bloodofox? I have no doubt this book was written with as much objectivity as Leveritts.

Regarding the website callahan.8k.com, here is a statement directly from the website about who is behind it.

"Who is behind the website?

We're Greg, Christian, and Monte. Although Greg and Christian are supporters of the WM3, and Monte isn't, the website doesn't contain our opinions about the case."

This helps explain how they are able to remove their personal opinions from the website to provide just the unaltered documents. Unlike Leveritt, their goal is to provide unbiased information of the case for others to access and evaluate without being guided in their thought or discovery, or spoon fed opinion based personal views of the author.

I also thought you might find it interesting to know that callahan.8k.com contains a listing of books written on the case.

All but ONE are in support of the West Memphis Three.

BOOKS

1995. The Blood of Innocents: The True Story of Multiple Murder in West Memphis, Arkansas. By Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia, and Bartholomew Sullivan. 418 pages.

2002. Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three. By Mara Leveritt. 417 pages.

2003. Broken Summers. By Henry Rollins. 237 pages. (Behind the scenes look at the making of the CD "Rise Above: 24 Black flag songs to benefit the West Memphis Three" and the subsequent world tour.)

2004. The Last Pentacle of the Sun: Writings in Support of the West Memphis Three. M.W. Anderson & Brett Alexander Savory, editors. 202 pages.

2005. Almost Home: My Life Story Vol 1. By Damien Echols. 151 pages.

2007. West Memphis Witch Hunt: Poems Supporting The West Memphis 3 Defense. Collected and edited by Misti Rainwater-Lites & Michael W. Johnson. 206 pages.

Opticks3 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the website says about itself, it isn't a reliable source. It falls under WP:USERGENERATED, specifically "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." This is why it isn't a reliable source, because anyone can go to freeservers and create a website that says whatever they want. That makes it unreliable. Especially when the articles are about living people. - SudoGhost 04:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)