Ok, so here I'm gonna discuss the defense claims that knife wounds on the victims were animal predation.
The defense had hired several very famous forensic pathologists, and then ran to the press claiming their allegations about predation were true, and saying that they couldn't be wrong because of the sheer number of paid experts they had hired, hiring many very famous pathologists attached to other famous trials, trying to argue the claims by consensus in the press rather than fact in court.
The three major experts that they hired with the help of director, Peter Jackson, were Michael Baden, famous for having his own HBO tv series, American Autopsy, and for working for OJ Simpson's defense team, claiming OJ is innocent. They also hired Werner Spitz who was famous for his work on Casey Anthony's defense team. A third hired expert was Vincent Di Maio, who made numerous claims in favor of of the defense's animal predation claims in the movie West of Memphis, only to shit on his own claims in the movie in a recent book he wrote, where he now says he's unsure of guilt or innocence, seeming to say that the defense team left out a bunch of facts in the case and saying that he had to google a bunch of information online.
The defense had apparently concocted the theory that animals had done the injuries because Fran Walsh, the wife of Peter Jackson had invented the theory in order to try and discredit Jessie Misskelley's confessions, by saying that there was never any knife wounds. It's stated that Peter Jackson's wife, Fran Walsh and her attorney invented the theory in John Douglas's book, "Law & Disorder".
Probably the connections to ritual murder and Satanism and Hollywood's over-the-top, laser beam focus on getting this specific case overturned – because Hollywood, and judaism, is centrally based on ritual murder and child sacrifice.
Isaiah Ortiz
Addressing Vincent Di Maio, he did not testify at any of the appeals hearings, but participated in the documentary West of Memphis, in which he ran his mouth claiming there was clear evidence of predation, only to later walk back his claims in a book he published shortly there after. In the book he says that he wasn't actually familiar with the crime nor the facts of the crime and had afterwords read more about it online, changing his opinion on several things and now thought that the WM3 might be guilty.
Page 225, where he says that the staged and edited video montage of a turtle eating was the defense's big proof of their claims, and says it's his excuse for why he said the things he did:
From page 229 of his book where he now seems to want everyone to disregard what he said about the case:
From page 230 of Di Maio's book:
Di Maio basically was trying to walk back everything he said, and at numerous times admitted that the evidence seemed to point all toward Echols as the killer, even saying in the book that Jessie Misskelley's statements matched the crime.
The first photo included here is a heavily blown up and cropped autopsy photo that the West of Memphis film makers used, which Di Maio was saying looked similar. However, it's actually part of a larger injury that stretches across Stevie Branch's face and busted his lips open from a beating, with some speculation it was from his face being stomped on. During an appeals hearing it was testified that Stevie was alive when the injury was inflicted due to evidence of it being anit-mortem, and not post-mortem, all meaning he was alive when the injury was inflicted, and therefore could not be animal predation. There was also no turtles found in the ditch when the police drained it, creating further doubt.
Second and third photos are full injuries without being cropped and blown up allowing for actual context. The final photo is the demonstration turtle bite from the documentary West of Memphis.
Also when replying to this post I attached the cover of Di Maio's book, in case anyone was wonder what book I was referencing.
Alexander Murphy
Werner Spitz was one of the two experts who actually testified during the appeals, and seemed to have been hired to completely change how the crimes had occurred for the sake of discrediting Jessie's confessions, because they matched the evidence. Spitz was most notable for his work as a hired gun for defense teams being accused of being a paid expert in the Casey Anthony trial, where he famously got Anthony off, claiming that maybe the police or someone else had wrapped the tape over her daughter's mouth and therefore Anthony was innocent.
Spitz claimed wild dogs made most of the injuries, including the injuries caused by the beatings, saying the dogs grabbed the boys in their mouths and bashed their skulls on rocks. He did this because he was trying to discredit the recovered murder weapons as evidence, Three large sticks found with the bodies, which the killers had apparently handled.
Leo Perry
This is a good redpill for the new show coming out.
I don't watch TV/Movies but I know everyone else does, and it will be a very nice feeling pointing out the Hollywood bullshit movie and actual facts didn't add up
Your theory is plausible. Definitely not a blackpill. Saying someone did pay these 3 to perform a blood sacrifice. They either pull strings to free them or get exposed. Assuming these guys were smart enough to stash some proof.
Julian James
The third expert, Michael Baden, who also testified, was brought on in an attempt to bolster Werner Spitz's claims. He also tried to attack the credibility of Dr. Frank Peretti, one of the pathologists who conducted the autopsies, saying that because he never got accredited anything he says should be dismissed, despite that none of Peretti's other autopsies, of which he's done hundreds have ever been called into question. To top it off, Dr. William Sturner, a personal friend of Baden's had actually over seen the autopsies of the three victims in the case, and accused Baden of using unscientific reasoning for his claims of predation. Baden had said he knew they were predation, simply because he just knew, that he had no scientific basis for his reasoning.
Testimony from Michael Baden during the appeals:
Baden also said that he wasn't familiar with all the evidence and said he hadn't even seen the luminol photos when formulating his opinions.
Included along with this is a video of Michael Baden getting BTFO by Tucker Carlson on the OJ Simpson case, since Baden often appears on Fox, so Tucker had him on to discuss OJ and called him out for being a lying cock sucker.
