Author Replies to Defenders of Satanist Child-Killers
January 9, 2013


Direct Link to Latest News
January 9, 2013
Dan said (January 9, 2013):
Pat has some good points that rate further questioning. The case presents an intriguing Catch 22.
I'm not saying Nichols didn't instigate killing the boys, he was clinically sociopathic and possibly capable of working himself into a psychotic break - maybe. But if Nichols and his stooges committed this crime, than it was an isolated act of mental illness, not organized Satanism.
Echols wasn't involved with other Satanists. He was acting out the Satanism he got from record albums and books. He had a copy Anto LeVay's Satanic Bible and Aliester Crowley's 777 which were freely available by mail order in the backs of Goth rock magazines in the '90's, or he could have bought them from a 'head shop' in Memphis. We know beyond doubt that he was connected with no coven or Satanic clubs, no older Satanists. He was what you'd call a 'wannabe' Satanist. His 'followers' were just two losers who would have gone along with anything to have a somebody to hang out with..
It makes sense that if a REAL coven of - say - Memphis Masonic politicians across the river - had slaughtered the 3 little boys, the local Masonic law would simply frame the most antisocial, most impoverished and unconnected juvenile delinquents with the crime. If it happened that way, the motive for releasing the patsies now, is the current campaign to say any accusation of Satanism is "Satanic Panic" and "witch hunt".
Johnny Depp, Metallica, Disturbed, L7, Trey Parker, Jack Black, Winona Ryder, Will Ferrell, Robert Smith, Patti Smith, Marilyn Manson, Shepard Fairey, Tom Waits, Clive Barker, Peter Straub, Margaret Cho, Dan "The Outlaw" Hardy, Patton Oswalt, Sarah Silverman, Axl Rose, Iggy Pop etcetera didn't spontaneously call each other up to say, "I'm sure concerned about that red neck kid they convicted of ritual murder in Arkansas in 1992. Let's form a club to raise public awareness that there are no Satanists!" Their agents were called by an undisclosed public relations firm hired to re-invent Echols as the 'victim' of 'Satanic Panic'.
Now that Echols and his accomplices are freed, has the media bothered to ask "Who murdered Steven Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers on May 5, 1993?"
Robert said (January 9, 2013):
On the basis of what has been published on this case on your site so far, Henry, I don't think you should be getting involved. In particular, this rebuttal is incredibly weak, dealing mainly with matters that go to character rather than to the commission of the crime (about which I know nothing). As for the author's certainty that
confession is absolute proof of guilt, people confess to all sorts of things they have not done, sometimes as a result of threatening interrogations.
If the confessions were specific and detailed they might be credible, but we are not given any information about this. On the business of washing off urine, someone could easily be led into making such a remark.
One has to hope that the guilt or innocence of persons charged with such a serious crime does not depend on the unplumbed superficiality these past two articles have advanced.
William Ramsey replies:
Please read the book. There are multiple confessions by Jesse Misskelley, most detailed and credible, made after he was convicted of the crime.
The West Memphis Three are guilty at law. They have been convicted of murder in 1994, and the Alford plea they took in 2011 is a guilty plea, at law. This cannot be in dispute.
The legal standard provided for a jury of judge to find a guilty plea is beyond a reasonable doubt. Two juries in Arkansas, in two separate trials, found Jesse Misskelley Jr., Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This cannot be in dispute either.
As to the issue of guilt in fact, there is an overabundance of facts, contained in my book, that in my opinion verifies and even bolsters, the findings of guilt determined in Arkansas. In fact, my book is currently suggested reading on the State Supreme Court Books website. Top of the list.
http://topics.sacbee.com/Arkansas%20Supreme%20Court/
Unfortunately, in my opinion, many of the positions taken by the supporters of the West Memphis Three are based on unplumbed talking points and superficial analysis of the actual facts and evidence.
The confessions of Misskelley are detailed and specific. The records are voluminous---see www.callahan.8k.com My book has no unplumbed superficialities----it's chock full of timelined dates and facts---based on the police and court records.
Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at
William Ramsey said (January 12, 2013):
My response on Vatic Project:
What Anonymous #2 does not seem to realize is that the supposedly developmentally disabled kid, Jessie Miskelley, Jr., confessed four times after he was convicted. He had nothing to gain. The actual records containing facts pertinent to the crime are in my book Abomination. Anonymous #2 is either a shill for the guilty (yes guilty at law, twice) or is repeating canards devised by the defense team like a clueless myna bird. Read the evidence. It's all there on www.callahan.8k.com.
To believe the guilty WM3 are innocent, you have to believe (among other whoppers) the following:
1. two separate juries of twelve (a total of 24 people) unanimously, and falsely, voted for guilt,
2. that the state Supreme Court, apprised of nine people, found nothing amiss in the case, falsely,
3. that the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of nine, denied a writ of certiorari, again falsely.
Please read the book or the website, obtain a proper timeline of the facts and evidence collected, and please stop listening and believing the falsehoods concocted by the defense.