I have on several occasions made it quite clear, and to the consternation of many people, that I believe Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley (known as the West Memphis Three) killed three 8-year-old Cub Scouts in West Memphis, Arkansas in May of 1993. They bragged about the horrific murders, confessed to them in various ways, and ultimately pled guilty to them. They are, in my opinion, unrepentant child killers—and they will live the rest of their lives and die as much, regardless of what Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson do to make them otherwise.

But it is Echols’ perpetual lying propensity, more than anything else, that convinces he is guilty of killing those helpless boys. Last September I posted a piece on this website about Echols’s “Lying Eyes.” And I honestly thought that his false claim about being “raped” on death row could not be topped. I should have known better: Echols is a serial, incurable liar—a character trait permanently embedded in the sick psychic of psychopaths.

In a February 2012 post on YouTube, which I stumbled across recently, Echols, with eyes hidden behind dark glasses, told interviewer Amy Goodman that he and his two cohorts pled guilty to the three murders last year because they had no choice. He said prosecutors told him to accept the plea deal and be released immediately or face five to ten more years of drawn out litigation before they would inevitably win their freedom. He told poor Goodman that prosecutors were afraid of a $60 million lawsuit the three killers could file against state officials once freed.

Okay, okay, I get this much -  they had no choice but to plead guilty, the entire state of Arkansas involved in his conviction were “corrupt,” and had they ever won their freedom because of being wrongfully convicted they could have filed a $60 million lawsuit. (Actually, based on established Supreme Court precedent, they would not have been able to receive a single dollar in damages against the prosecutors involved in their wrongful conviction—and I find it stunning that Goodman is not aware of this fact.)

But these lies were not enough for this child killer and intellectual dimwit. Echols added that the “corrupt” officials could have gotten him killed for $50 any day of the week.

Folks, if I know nothing else in this world, I know prison—and I know Damien Echols is a pathological, lying little weasel. First, let’s look at the facts: according to the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are only 4 homicides per 100,000 inmates each year in that nation’s prison system. That translates into about 100 homicides (inmate-on-inmate killings) with 2 of them occurring in the Arkansas prison system.

Second, assuming arguendo that such a $50 hit could have been arranged out, who would have orchestrated it? Who would pay the inmate (or guard) the $50 to thrust a rusty prison shank in Echols’s back? Think about it! Do you realize how many people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy? Would the D.A. or Judge tell the Arkansas prison superintendent to get the job done? And would the superintendent then instruct a warden to get the job done? And would the warden then instruct the prison’s chief of security to get the job done? And would the chief of security instruct the prison’s unit supervisor to get the job done? And would the unit supervisor instruct one of the key-turning guards to get the job done? And would the key-turner instruct an inmate to carry out the hit. And who in the hell is going to pay that $50? And would it be passed through all these hands?

Now, if you believe any of this, then I understand why you believe Echols is more honest than Mother Teresa and is purer than that proverbial new driven snow. And I’m also sure you believe you had dinner with Elvis last night.

In effect, Echols would have you believe that the “corrupt” D.A. put a gun to his head and told him: “take the deal now, dude, or we’ll kill you for 50 bucks down the road.”

And Amy Goodman, just like Johnny Depp and Natalie Maines, was so “star struck” by Echols’s psychopathic charm that she did not challenge the child killer on this “shocking” and utterly ridiculous allegation. 

It brings to mind what an old prison con artist was fond of saying: “if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit.”


Leave a comment