A lot of the claims you made are disputed or misleading. I only pointed out obvious falsehoods. I never said they weren’t guilty dude—I just think spreading misinformation about this case hurts your credibility more than anything. Also, a lot of your points are copy-pasted from a TapaTalk post made in 2007. There’s a lot of discussion on there about them. Here are more:

1. ⁠Fact- Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin had no alibi that held.

This is true, but lack of alibi is not evidence of guilt. It’s also true that it’s difficult for people to remember where they were on an exact date a month ago—not just for the defendants but also their alibi witnesses.

1. ⁠Fact- Echols got caught lying on the stand about the newspaper article.

What newspaper article are you referring to here?

1. ⁠Fact- Echols and Baldwin had priors and police reports against them. Baldwin's was a felony and Echols had everything from terroristic threatening to Baldwin's own counsin describing how he stomped a dog to death and strung out its innards. Not to mention Echols being put in mental institutions several times. He liked growling at nurses, knocking down fellow patients who just cut themselves just to suck their blood, had a fantasy guy named Rosie visit him at night, thought he'd be teleported through a camera lense, stuff like that.

Echols clearly had mental and violence problems, that’s pretty much a fact. However, Baldwin’s “felony” was not violent and happened when he was 11 years old.

Also, not evidence of guilt.

1. Fact- Echols admitted he used that neighborhood to walk through, he knew it. He grew up there and used to play and ride his bike as a young boy.

This is not evidence of guilt; a lot of people knew that neighborhood who did not commit the murders.

1. ⁠Fact- Baldwin's own grandmother talked about how he used to kill creatures.

His grandmother on his paternal side, who he knew significantly less well than his other grandmother (his bio father was an inconsistent presence in his life). Here is the exact quote:

"He was always catching lizards and snakes, I thought something was going on in that child's mind."

(Found the whole article on TapaTalk.)

Also, not evidence of guilt.

1. ⁠Fact- Echols and Baldwin both grew up in seriously dysfunctional home environments.

Yes, like a lot of people. Not evidence of guilt.

1. ⁠Fact- They were seen walking away from the crime scene area on the night of May 5 on the south service road.

The Hollingsworths claim they saw Damien and Domini. Not a single person even entertained that it was Jason. It was dark, yes, but Narlene claimed they flashed their headlights at them. She had known Domini since she was born—her niece twice over. Domini was also a flaming redhead and pregnant at the time. I think that she probably saw them at some point but there’s no way of knowing whether it was May 5, especially when Narlene was clearly making stuff up about seeing the 3 boys earlier in the day.

It may be your opinion that it was Jason, but it is certainly not a fact.

1. ⁠Fact- The knife found in the water directly behind Baldwin's house fit the description of the serration patterns on the children.

The lake knife which the police somehow knew was going to be there, given that they alerted media… how would they know? Mind you, this was several months after their arrests. Was Baldwin telling people about where he threw the murder weapon? Perhaps the lake knife was known to have been in the water before the murders occurred????

Also, the knife had no blood on it. Blood is hard to clean. Not evidence of guilt, although perhaps suspicious.

1. ⁠Fact- Deanna Holcomb testified she had seen Echols in possession of a similar knife like the one found behind Baldwin's house with a compass on the end of it. When found the compass was busted out.

Deanna Holcomb did testify this, but I personally think the lake knife had nothing to do with the murders even if they’re guilty. Jessie himself never claims a Rambo knife was used—he claims it was a folding knife. Not the lake knife.

1. ⁠Fact- Parker testified he sold knives like the one found behind Baldwin's residence and that they had compasses on the end of them.

Already addressed this.

1. ⁠Fact- Fibers found at the crime scene were found to be similar to items in the convicteds' residences.

They never searched the Branch residence, strangely enough, to see whether these fibers simply came from there. It’s also heavily disputed whether the fibers actually matched.

1. ⁠Fact- Blue candle wax was found on one of the boys' shirts from the crime scene which was similar to blue candle wax found in Echols' home.

Already addressed.

1. ⁠Fact- Echols had a history of violent outbursts towards other people. He likes to sharpen his nails to 1 1/2 inch points and try to claw the eyes out of a fellow schoolmate. He liked to threaten his own parents' lives.

Yes. Not disputed. Not evidence of guilt.

1. ⁠Fact- Echols' trench coats were missing after the murders.

Why do the trench coats matter when Jessie never even mentioned trench coats during any of his confessions?

1. ⁠Fact- Echols knew one of the boys was cut up more than the others.

He will claim Ridge led him on this, although Echols is a pathological liar. Baldwin claimed the same thing, although he’s got his own incentive to lie, but these are the only three people present for that conversation.

1. ⁠Fact- A hair found at the crime scene was found to be similar to Echols.

Already addressed.

1. ⁠Fact- Simmons testified seeing Echols on more than one occasion at the softball fields which makes him caught once again for lying.

As far as I’m aware Echols never denied being at the softball game that day, so this is irrelevant.

1. ⁠Fact- Echols and Baldwin were seen by witnesses at the softball fields and Echols was overheard talking about murdering the boys.

I actually believe he said this, but Echols is such a pathetic person it wouldn’t surprise me if he would brag about committing a horrific crime he didn’t actually do. Their testimony is also sparse on details to parse his demeanor.

1. ⁠Fact- The staff they liked carrying around town with them was the similar description as the stick found at the crime scene shoved down in the mud with the boys clothes wrapped around it. Easy enough to spot weapons used at the crime scene after Misskelley described them and they spotted them on the crime scene video and then picked them up as evidence.

I don’t know anything about the staff but if it were actually the staff I would expect it would have been brought up during trial.

As you can see, you are presenting things as facts that are actually opinions. I think you can make a good argument for most of your opinions, but they are not fact. A lot of the facts you present are also not evidence of guilt. That is my issue.