Further Adventures in a West Memphis Courtroom -- UPDATED

Judge Victor Hill denied a motion from Pam Hicks (previously Hobbs) and John Mark Byers to see all the evidence in the murder of their sons Stevie Branch and Christopher Byers, as well as Michael Moore. Neither these two plaintiffs nor their attorney Ken Swindle seem very broken up about the decision.

The attorney for Pam Hicks and Mark Byers, the parents of two of the victims, told News Channel 3 that judge’s decision “was not a big deal.”

“They would have like to have had all the evidence. That would have been the icing on the cake. But the ending goal was answering questions,” attorney Ken Swindle said. “The primary reason the parents hired me was to find answers, and they feel like for the first time in 20 years they have answers about what happened in those woods.”

That's because in the process of suing, they were granted partial access to the evidence. The discovery process enabled them to see a letter from Bennie Guy which implicated four men. Both Guy and Billy Stewart, who was referenced in Guy's letter, were interviewed. They claim that they heard confessions from two of the men, then teenagers, who committed the murders.

If this new testimony brings Hicks and Byers any sense of closure, I must assume that means they are convinced that Terry Hobbs and his friend (lover?) David Jacoby spearheaded the murders, because that's what Stewart and Guy claim.

Byers seems quite convinced and got very aggressive with Mr. Jacoby at the courthouse last week. Hicks has speculated in the past that her ex-husband Terry Hobbs could have been responsible but had been loathe to believe it.

Their stories, which can be downloaded along with some other evidence here, tell a wild story of forbidden love, drug abuse, and a violent end for three boys who stumbled on a strange scene in the woods.

As I wrote last week, the story that unfolds in the new testimony is pretty crazy and there are some credibility issues. Stewart is a drug dealer with a record. Guy is a convicted rapist, and his conversation with L.G. Hollingsworth was a jailhouse confession. Hollingsworth died in a car accident in 2001. The fourth potential suspect Buddy Lucas, who confessed to both Stewart and Guy, is described as "slow."

That said, the major elements of the two interviews are consistent and mutually reinforcing. Both men seem genuinely aghast but felt some need at the time of the confessions to protect the child-like teenager Lucas.

Lucas was also friends with Jessie Misskelley whose confession to police implicated himself, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. It is arguably why all three were convicted but is considered by many experts to be a false confession, in part because of Misskelley's mental capacity. The same could obviously be argued regarding Lucas, although there's a key difference. Lucas confessed his own involvement, not to police after hours of grueling interrogation, but to people he knew and had some relationship with.

Lucas also gave some rather convoluted testimony to the authorities back in 1993 that implicated his friend Misskelley. It was also apparently under some duress as he said later police had "hollered" at him. He recanted it the same day and refused to testify. His conversation with prosecutor John Fogleman can also be found in the evidence packet.

The story that now unfolds from Mr. Lucas's confessions as relayed by Guy and Stewart is at least more plausible than a Satanic ritual murder that left no altar or tools or any physical evidence at all. As a narrative it, at least makes sense and provides a plausible motive. Stewart is a drug dealer but he appears to have been Hobbs's drug dealer and his eye-witness testimony of Hobbs snogging with with Jacoby and hanging out in a gay bar also bolsters the essential narrative.

Even before this turn of events, Hobbs was in the crosshairs of WM3 supporters. He even tried to sue Natalie Maines for citing the DNA evidence against him, as if she'd invented it. That didn't work out.

Now, a new movie (see above), outlines the already accumulated evidence against him. The movie has taken fair criticism for targeting Hobbs so directly.

The new documentary West of Memphis has received a lot of praise for the way it tells the story of three men who were convicted, perhaps wrongly, for the murders of three young boys in West Memphis, Arkansas in the early '90s. "A gripping documentary," said the Guardian's review. "Compelling and comprehensive," proclaimed a New York Post article. "The film," wrote Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman, "casts a hypnotic spell all its own."

But the rave reviews miss a dangerous hypocrisy at the heart of the film, which was paid for and produced by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, and directed by Amy Berg. In their quest to clear the names of the "West Memphis Three"—Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. who were teenagers when they were convicted for the 1993 killings—the filmmakers decide that they have found the actual murderer: Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the murdered boys. And in publicly making the case against him, they perpetrate a similar sort of injustice to the one they originally set out to correct: relying on questionable evidence to prosecute in the court of public opinion.

. . .

Is this mixture of facts, conjecture, and speculation enough to prove Hobbs guilty? How much of this evidence would hold up in court? How much would withstand interrogation? How much wouldn't even be admitted in the first place? How much is reliant on faulty memories?

Unless Hobbs actually goes on trial, we won't ever know. But the filmmakers aren't answerable to a judge or jury.

The big question, though, is whether Hobbs -- let alone Jacoby and Lucas -- ever will stand trial. Because although the evidence to date is mostly circumstantial, contains inconclusive physical evidence, and includes testimony from convicted criminals, it's still a stronger case than the one that convicted Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley. That conviction cost them half their lives, spent their youth, and still marks them as convicted felons.

One more tantalizing clue emerged from that West Memphis courtroom this week.

The judge said they can’t have access to all of [the evidence] since it may be needed in a future trial.

UPDATE: This was just posted to Facebook by WM3.org. They missed it last week and it hadn't come up in my google search of on Bennie Guy, either. But Mr. Guy may be cleared by DNA evidence.

Things haven't changed much in the 18 years since Bennie David Guy walked the streets of Earle, Arkansas as a free man. But, soon the now 53-year-old Guy may get that chance as he awaits parole after serving less than half of a 40 year sentence for a crime DNA evidence indicated he didn't commit, the rape of an 11-year-old girl at a motel in 1995.  That evidence was available to Crittenden County prosecutors and his defense attorney just two months after he went to prison.

"I get to looking at the evidence that's in the writ and the DNA evidence says he didn't commit the rape. His semen was not found in the victim. That it's someone...It's someone else's," said Project Innocence attorney Phillip Allen in 2008.

Bennie's brother Bobby also believes him innocent, "They sent a letter said the girl lied about it. Said it been on her conscience for so long she wanted to get it off her conscience."

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

A West Memphis Courtroom and a Wild Story

Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, & Christopher Byers

Pam Hicks (formerly Hobbs) would like to see the evidence pertaining to her son Stevie Branch's murder.

Pam Hicks, the mother of Stevie Branch, wants to examine some of the items that belonged to her son and were found at the murder scene.

Hicks previously told us, “I do want to know that it has not been contaminated if they need it, if something [were] to come out of this,” said Hicks. “I definitely don’t want to touch it. I just want to have a peace of mind and ease of knowing that they still have it.”

Police Chief Donald Oakes says they still have it, all of it, and most of it is sealed.

Hicks's attorney Ken Swindle put forward four new possible suspects in the murders for which the West Memphis Three spent their youths in an Arkansas prison. Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley were released in August of 2011 on an Alford Plea but are still considered convicted murderers by the state of Arkansas.

Two of the suspects have been discussed previously due to hairs consistent with their DNA being found at the crime scene: Terry Hobbs and his friend David Jacoby. Inconsistencies in Hobbs's story have also raised enough concern that even his former wife, Hicks, has previously raised suspicions.

The two additional suspects are Buddy Lucas and L.G. Hollingsworth and this is where the story starts to become surreal. According to sworn affidavits from Bennie Guy and Billy Stewart, Lucas confessed to them that he and the other three men murdered Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore. Lucas and Hollingsworth were teens at the time and involved in a drug-fueled, homoerotic escapade with the older men when they noticed the three children observing them.

According to Guy, he convinced Hollingsworth to admit his guilt and share details. Guy said that Hollingsworth told him that he and Lucas had been walking in Lakeshore Trailer Park when Hobbs and Jacoby drove up, asking where to buy marijuana.

Lucas and Hollingsworth directed them to Stewart, then went along for the ride. At that point, Stewart tells a similar story, but says that when they drove up to buy weed, he saw Hobbs kiss Jacoby. Stewart added that his son also saw them kissing on a later occasion. He said that a few days after the murders, he also delivered pot, cocaine and crystal meth to Hobbs at a Memphis gay bar called J-Wags.

. . .

According to the affidavits, Lucas said that the quartet drank whiskey, smoked pot and drove around, eventually ending up in the wooded area where the murders took place. Lucas told Stewart that Hobbs and Jacoby made the two teenagers wrestle after they got to the woods.

At that point, both Guy and Stewart say that the boys surprised them by riding up on their bikes. Hobbs ordered them to chase down the boys. Lucas then told Stewart that he and Hollingsworth were forced to hold the boys while Jacoby and Hobbs beat them. They then stripped the bodies, dumped them in the water and hid the bicycles. The bodies were found the next day.

Hollingsworth died in a car accident in 2001 and Lucas has been described as "slow" which might make all of that a little hard to prove.

Judge Victor Hill says he will deliver a verdict on the availability of the evidence on Monday.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Amanda Knox: Another Witch Trial?

I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the Amanda Knox murder trial. I didn't follow it when it was going on and most of the hysterical coverage here in the states was little more than background noise to me. I will also freely admit that I should have been paying more attention. In the wake of her exoneration on appeal, the coverage has been most interesting. I don't know if she and her boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito were guilty or innocent. I haven't read enough about the case to have a fully formed opinion. But it seems evident at this point that whatever else it may have been, this was another case of a woman being put on trial for her sexuality. There are also disturbing elements of a Satanic Panic similar to that that robbed the West Memphis Three of eighteen years of their lives. The Wild Hunt gives a little overview.

Now that Amanda Knox has been acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher on appeal, more than a few have been noting the ties to “Satanic panic” that marred the original conviction. However, a bizarre editorial from Brendan O’Neill in The Telegraph says that the Satanic panics were started by feminists, not Christians, using one whole data point (and Oprah) to feed his narrative. In truth, this moral panic incubated, at least in the United States, in Christian churches, not feminist gatherings. The textual evidence for this is so pervasive that I can only think that O’Neill has an ax to grind.

The Brendan O'Neill piece is nothing short of bizarre and his animus towards feminism is glaringly apparent.

This idea that the modern-day obsession with Satanism and crazy sexual degradation springs from somewhere within the Vatican is completely mad. It wasn’t Catholic officials or men of the cloth who in recent years rehabilitated the Middle Ages view that there are evil people out there who worship the devil and have sex while they’re doing it – no, it was radical feminists and social workers, in fact some of the same kind of people currently shedding tears over the witch-hunting of Knox. Across Western Europe and America in the 1980s and 90s, it was implacably atheistic, supposedly “Left-wing” activists who spread the idea that Satanism was making a comeback and that children were being raped and killed as a result. It was writers like Beatrix Campbell, a feminist and contributor to the Guardian, who argued in 1990 in Marxism Today, the then bible of the chattering Left, that Satanists were “organising rituals to penetrate any available orifice in troops of little children; to cut open rabbits or cats or people and drink their blood; to shit on silver trays and make the children eat it”. It was feministic social workers who, with the help of police, kidnapped working-class children from their families on the bizarre basis that they were being ritualistically abused. It was people like Oprah Winfrey, echoing academic feminists, who hosted TV shows claiming that some families in America were involved in "human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism" – watch the clip here.

He's not entirely wrong as to how, in part, the Satanic Panic was disseminated, but has ripped these elements from their proper context and transparently used them to bash feminism. In his version of events the sex abuse of children is a fictional element of a feminist obsession with Satanism. This is about exactly backwards. There were definitely erroneous reports of Satanic ritual abuse; some that ruined people's lives unfairly. This was part of a larger belief in the recovery of repressed memory that dominated discussions of sex abuse more generally. Much of the repressed memory theory has been discredited. That far more sex abuse of children occurs than society had previously wanted to admit has not. And the repressed memory theory was one part of bringing the horrors of this crime out into the open, in part because it allowed for legal avenues where the statute of limitations would otherwise have made prosecution impossible.

Repressed memory theory remains controversial. The American Psychiatric Association considers its occurrence as possible but unproven.

First, it's important to state that there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them although they may not fully understand or disclose it. Concerning the issue of a recovered versus a pseudomemory, like many questions in science, the final answer is yet to be known. But most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later. However, these leaders also agree that it is possible to construct convincing pseudomemories for events that never occurred.

The mechanism(s) by which both of these phenomena happen are not well understood and, at this point it is impossible, without other corroborative evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one.

In The Myth of Repressed Memory, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus effectively challenged the theoretical framework of repressed memory therapy. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I wrote the press release for the book when it was originally released.) It was a fascinating book and while I would not say that Loftus entirely disproved the phenomenon of repressed and recovered memory, she demonstrated quite conclusively that memory is a creative and mutable function. We rescript memories all the time, which is why two people can remember the same events very differently. And under guidance we can completely fabricate false memories. I think there is little question that there are cases of people fabricating memories under hypnosis and other forms of therapy that are partly or, in some instances, entirely false.

I think in many cases it was accidental and with the best of intentions that therapists guided people through a process of memory recovery that created false memories. And in some of those cases, the memories that arose involved Satanic ritual abuse and some people saw things that looked like horror movies complete with supernatural phenomena. These memories were treated as real by therapists and talk show hosts and formed one tributary that fed the Satanic Panic of the '80s and '90s. I would never be so arrogant as to say that no instance of Satanic ritual abuse ever occurred. I will say that there has never been documented evidence of it and point out that the FBI was never able to corroborate the instances of Satanic ritual murders and the like.

To chalk this up to some kind feminist conspiracy, however, is ludicrous. Women, some self-described feminists and some not, have been at the forefront of a movement to bring the horrors of childhood sexual abuse into the open and to provide avenues for effective therapy. Some of it has been disastrous. Some of it has been life-saving for survivors of sex abuse.

A social worker friend of mine explained to me, some years ago, his theory of why Satanic ritual abuse has come up repeatedly in the therapy of sex abuse survivors and I consider his reasoning quite sound. It was his supposition that people who'd been sexually abused as children found themselves in an experience of unfathomable evil and a total sense of powerlessness. That they would augment those memories with imaginings of the archetype of ultimate evil, Satan, made perfect sense.

All that said, I think O'Neill's supposition that the prosecutor in Italy was led astray by feminists in his Satanic theory of Amanda Knox's criminal proclivities is the height of absurdity. His case against Knox was the antithesis of feminism but, more to the point, he seems to have something of an obsession with Satanism.

The story begins almost a decade ago, long before Meredith Kercher's murder, when the pubblico ministero (public prosecutor) of Perugia, Giuliano Mignini, opened an investigation into the mysterious death of a doctor whose body was found floating in Lake Trasimeno in 1985.

Mignini believed the doctor was connected to a satanic sect, which had murdered him because he was about to go to the police and reveal its many crimes. Mignini believed this shadowy cult was connected to infamous murders committed by a serial killer known as the Monster of Florence.

. . .

Mignini theorised that this satanic cult consisted of powerful people – noblemen, pharmacists, journalists and freemasons – who ordered the Monster killings because they needed female body parts to use as the blasphemous wafer in their black masses. Putting himself in charge of the investigation, Mignini became so obsessed that he crossed the line of legality, wiretapping journalists and conducting illegal investigations of newspapers.

He was indicted for these and other crimes, including abuso d'ufficio, abuse of office, in 2006. One prosecutor said he was a man "prey to a kind of delirium".

Far from a feminist inspired sex abuse theory, Mignini's case took as its departure point the mere fact that Amanda Knox was a young woman very much in possession of her sex drive. This, to his way of thinking, made her "'a diabolical, satanic, demonic she-devil' who 'likes alcohol, drugs and hot, wild sex'. "

As Hugo Schwyzer explained in a recent column, the prosecution put her perfectly normal, nonviolent sexuality on trial.

That mixture of prurience and contempt was on full display in Perugia, where Knox was tried.  The prosecutor devoted extensive time to discussing the defendant’s sex life and her clothing, including her taste in (or lack of) underwear. He was positively obsessed with her vibrator, as if female masturbation  was indicative of a propensity for homicide.  Her diary, replete with the personal details one would expect in a private journal, was read repeatedly in court.

Sadly, there is nothing new about the demonization of female sexuality. It's quite ancient, really.

There is also nothing new about accusations of Satanism, heresy, and evil Masonic plots. And despite Brendon O'Neill's protestations, far more of that falls to the history of the Catholic church than to modern feminism. And Giulliano Mignini looks like an old-school inquisitor, pursuing specters of witchery and other enemies of the Church.

Mignini got encouragement and theoretical assistance in the esoteric aspects of previous investigations from an unusual source: Gabriella Carlizzi, a wealthy Roman woman and courthouse gadfly whose day job consisted of running a Catholic charity that worked with prisoners. Carlizzi, who died of cancer in 2010, was, like Mignini, a serious practicing Catholic herself who had dedicated her life to exposing and fighting satanic sects.

. . .

One of Carlizzi’s primary obsessions were the Masons.

There are 24 Masonic lodges in Perugia, making it Italy’s per-capita center of Masonic activity. Perugians believe that members of those lodges secretly control most aspects of banking, business and administration in their community.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

48 Hours Mystery -- West Memphis 3: Free

In case you missed the new 48 Hours Mystery on the WM3, I have posted the show in its entirety above. Much of it is a rehash of their earlier coverage but the new interviews with Damien Echols, his wife Lorri Davis, and Jason Baldwin are incredibly heartening. It's wonderful to see that Echols has gotten some color. His skin looked like alabaster on the day of his release. And Jason Baldwin has won a whole new level of admiration from me. His joy and optimism after having lost half his life to the criminal justice system of Arkansas are amazing. He has proved himself to be a man of honor and integrity. He could have gotten a reduced sentence, all those years ago, if he'd testified against his friend. He refused. And torn between his desire to see a just verdict in a new trial and the certainty of saving Echols's life with the plea deal, he chose to save a life. Has the absurdity of putting this man behind bars for murder ever been more glaringly apparent?

The written coverage from CBS underscores the absurdity:

This is what justice in Arkansas looks like: On Aug. 19, 2011, Judge David Laser in Craighead County released three men who had spent the last 18 years in prison, one of them on death row. But as part of an unusual plea agreement, the three men -- Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley -- who insist they are innocent, had to first plead guilty to three counts of murder.

It struck more than a few observers in the packed courtroom that morning that the surreal spectacle had very little to do with justice. As one of the newly freed men, Jason Baldwin, later described it, "When we told prosecutors we were innocent, they put us in prison for life. Now when we plead guilty, they set us free!"

The county prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington's actions didn't help clear up matters either. He said publicly that he still believed these men were guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the state's history: the brutal murder of three 8-year-old boys in 1993. And yet, he made them all sign a waiver promising not to sue the state.

Nope. It's still not justice. But at least three innocent men are finally free.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

WM3 on 48 Hours Mystery

CBS 48 Hours Mystery, which profiled Johnny Depp's interest in the West Memphis Three a year and ago will be doing a follow-up report. It will air Saturday, Sept. 17, at 10:00 PM Eastern Time. I know I already have my DVR set. More info can be found on the CBS website here.

When three men convicted of murdering three young boys were released from Arkansas prisons last month, it made headlines. This Saturday, "48 Hours Mystery" will air a comprehensive report on the case, including the first television interviews with two of the men known as the "West Memphis 3." Correspondent Erin Moriarty, who has been working this story for four years, offered a preview on "The Early Show."

Watch a preview of this "48 Hours Mystery" episode

Jason Baldwin, Moriarty reported, is beginning his life at age 34, doing the kinds of simple things most of us take for granted, such as getting his driver's license and enjoying the outdoors.

Baldwin told CBS News, "The first thing I did? Oh, I just smiled and got, like, a thousand hugs from everybody, you know?... I smiled so much that my face actually hurt from it, you know, but it is a good thing. ... It just felt like everything was alright. Like, here's the time to begin, you know?"

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

WM3 Panel Discussion in Little Rock

A West Memphis Three panel discussion held at the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock Arkansas was filled to capacity with over 1,200 people. Both the panel and the audience seemed to be heavily tilted in the direction of WM3 supporters, but that's probably a reflection of public perception more generally. There are a lot more people who think the three are innocent than think they are guilty. Prosecutor Scott Ellington was the lone representative from the guilty camp, on a panel that was filled out by the three defense attorneys, Devil's Knot author Mara Leveritt, and Capi Peck of Arkansas Take Action.

The reflections of moderator Max Brantley can be found here. I watched the entire 1:42:02 program last night and I think it's well worth the time investment.

The take-away from the program is Scott Ellington's promise to test the DNA when the lab hired by the defense is done with it. He said they would run it through the data-base and cross-check it for contamination by police and lab techs. That could be important as DNA from three unidentified men has been detected.

"Once Bode labs gets their reports done, the state crime lab has agreed to run those through CODIS," Ellington said, referring to a database of known criminals as well as crime lab employees. "If there are any hits, then that evidence can be brought to the defense attorneys."

Ellington later told The Associated Press in an interview: "If the defendants have evidence they didn't commit the crime, let them prove it. That's why the crime lab is willing to test DNA results provided by the defense."

Prosecutors have contended that the absence of the three men's DNA at the crime scene does not prove their innocence, pointing out that jurors convicted the three on other evidence. Ellington said that although the DNA does not match the three men's, it may not be traceable to other suspects.

"The DNA they keep talking about has never been cross-checked with DNA from the law enforcement officers on the scene and has never been cross-checked with lab employees. ... We believe the right results are there, but we would be willing to run those and see if there are any matches," Ellington told reporters.

In other highlights, Mara Leveritt, who has a positively angelic voice and manner, fielded an audience question about the racial implications. Would there be so much interest in the West Memphis Three if they had been men of color? It's a good question and it's one I've pondered for years. Leveritt makes the point that the primary divide in this country is economic and with that and I heartily agree. It's not for nothing that advocacy for the poor of all races was Martin Luther King's primary focus shortly before he was assassinated. There is no question that if Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, had come from wealth and social stature, this case would never have gone to trial. And not just because of better legal representation. I still have to wonder, though, if this case would have gotten so much traction had they had been three black men.

I was very impressed by Jessie Misskelley's attorney Jeff Rosenzweig. I don't know what it is but for some reason, since their release, it's Jessie Misskelley who is tearing at my heartstrings. I looked at closeups of his face during their initial press conference and just burst into tears. He just seems so vulnerable. Rosenzweig spoke at length about his deficiencies, surmising that saying his IQ is 72 seems generous. He reads at third to fourth grade level and was most likely "socially" promoted through school until he dropped out after the ninth grade. And now that we know so much more about false confessions and their high correlation with low IQ it's incredibly clear how this happened.

Rozenzweig also had a lot to offer on the question of whether or not the West Memphis Three will be able to profit from writing or other art regarding their ordeal with the justice system. He questioned the Son of Sam law on First Amendment issues. More to the point, he said the law pertains to profiting from the crime not other observations about the overall experience of trial, incarceration, etc. They may be able to tell their stories about this Kafkaesque journey and earn income. I would hope so, considering that having lost out years of education and employment in prison, they can't even sue under their plea deal.

Also discussed was the disturbing issue of the blood evidence, um, misplaced (???) by the West Memphis PD immediately following the crime. That would be the blood recovered from the restroom of the Bojangles' [sic] near the crime scene left by a bloody, disheveled man. It sure would have been helpful to have that particular DNA?

Jason Baldwin's attorney Blake Hendrix had this to say:

To me the Bojangles' is a perfect exemplification in this case that this is one of those cases that it's a, an entire systemic failure. The system entirely failed. The system failed from the law enforcement ground up. The system failed in how the prosecution treated the case. The system failed in how the state forensic people treated this case. The system failed from the defense lawyers' standpoint. It is a total systemic failure…. There are a lot of people in my business who go around thumpin' their chest that this is the greatest system of justice on the planet earth. I don't necessarily agree with them. I think it is a flawed system and just like this case there are failures across the board…. Being a criminal defense lawyer is one of the greatest jobs on the planet. I am shocked that I lucked into this job. Because my function is to balance power -- prosecutorial power over here. My job is to get up every morning and make sure, just like in our constitutional system of government, checks and balances. We balance power.

These are defense attorneys at their absolute best, speaking as champions, not just of civil liberties, but of justice. After months of seeing defense attorneys at their most unholy during the James Ray trial, such genuine idealism gladdens my heart.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Can the WM3 Clear Their Names?

Will Open in New Window

In an interview with Amy Goodman, filmmaker Joe Berlinger expressed his dismay that the plea bargain that got the West Memphis Three out of prison after eighteen years failed to bring justice in the case. Under the rare Alford Plea, they are still guilty as a matter law, even though they are able to claim their innocence. The fight to completely clear the names of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley will go on.

Governor Mike Beebe was asked if he would pardon the three but he refused explaining that he only considers pardons after people have served their sentences. So, note to anyone on death row seeking a pardon in Arkansas. Your current governor won't consider it until after you're dead. Helpful.

Beebe said he had no plans to pardon the recently freed West Memphis Three. He cited his policy of not considering pardon cases until sentences were completed. He said it was his understanding that the West Memphis Three still would serve up to 10 years of suspended sentences.

Beebe also said if new evidence were presented that pointed to a different killer, then he would reconsider the case.

Governor Beebe says he will consider it if there is evidence pointing to a new suspect. This could be tricky as District Attorney Scott Ellington has made it clear he considers the matter closed. There are no plans in West Memphis to actually seek justice for Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, or Michael Moore, whose brutal murder remains effectively unsolved.

Peter Jackson and his partner Fran Walsh intend to continue to fund an investigation. Having previously funded the DNA testing and other forensic research that debunked much of the prosecution's original case, they intend to now fund a wider investigation. So if a murderer is indeed to be found, West Memphis will again have Hollywood to thank.

Entertainment Weekly has learned that director Peter Jackson and his partner Fran Walsh will continue to fund the West Memphis Three investigation, even now that the men have been released from prison — free, but technically still considered guilty in the eyes of the law. “The ongoing work will focus on proving the convicted men’s innocence, as it always has,” says Jackson’s manager, Ken Kamins. He adds that the investigation will include “evidence testing and further investigation which will hopefully lead to the unmasking of the actual killer.”

The Lord of the Rings director has spent the past several years quietly funding private investigations and forensic experts to help clear the West Memphis Three. Jackson has been a longtime advocate of Jason Baldwin, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Damien Echols — the trio of men many believe were wrongly convicted in 1994 of murdering three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, Ark., and whose nightmare odyssey in the legal system became the subject of the award-winning 1996 HBO documentary Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. Eddie Vedder, Johnny Depp, Natalie Maines, and Henry Rollins were among the others who rallied to support the West Memphis Three.

“When Peter and Fran got involved, they had to decide how to best serve the case,” Kamins says. “Damien, Jason, and Jessie had great public advocates in Eddie, Johnny, Natalie, Henry, Paradise Lost, and everyone else who was raising money and bringing public attention to the case. Peter and Fran, therefore, decided to put their attention into funding and spearheading DNA work, hiring forensic and other experts, plus extensive private investigations into all aspects of the case.”

More detail on how the information provided by the Echols extensive defense machine was used to leverage the Alford Plea that got all three released is provided in an article by Devil's Knot author Mara Leveritt. In this thoroughly detailed piece she gives a blow by blow on how they narrowed it down to the juror misconduct issue and the fact that both sides were motivated to keep this from going through a lengthy new trial that looked inevitable. Some of this I've posted previously but it's as galling to read it a second time. Nothing quite makes the blood pressure spike like reading that the judge who oversaw the original trial took credible information of juror misconduct, sealed it, and declined the defense's motion.

The stunning information that the jury foreman at their trial had violated court instructions had come to light three years earlier. Little Rock restaurateurs Capi Peck and Brent Peterson, who had become supporters of the three defendants, hosted a gathering at Trio's restaurant in early 2008 for several local attorneys, hoping to enlist further support. At that event, one attorney mentioned knowing that another attorney had received phone calls from the foreman throughout the Echols-Baldwin trial.

The Echols team contacted that attorney and in May 2008, Lloyd Warford, of Little Rock, signed an affidavit stating that, at the time of the trial, he was working for the jury foreman, Jonesboro real estate broker Kent Arnold, on an unrelated matter. Warford said Arnold called him repeatedly during the trial, purportedly about the other work, but that during the conversations, Arnold spoke passionately about the trial.

. . .


Evidence from other jurors supported Warford's affidavit — and his belief that "Kent Arnold saw himself as the real hero of this trial," because he had informed fellow jurors of Misskelley's confession. A flip-chart used in the jury room, listing reasons for and against convicting Echols and Baldwin, referenced Misskelley's confession in the "pro" column. Notes kept during the trial by another juror also mentioned Misskelley's statement.

Judge David Burnett, who officiated at the trials and throughout subsequent circuit court appeals, ordered Warford's affidavit to be sealed, and for the next couple of years, it remained unknown to all, except the judge, the defendants and a small circle of lawyers. By 2010, however, defense attorneys were able to argue before the state Supreme Court that the juror misconduct issue, along with the new DNA findings, warranted new trials.

This is the judge whose professional dispassion was on full display recently when he referred to the recently released men as "murderers." He sealed evidence of juror misconduct in his court. I still can't get over that. When I first read about that last year, I just paced around the house muttering for twenty minutes.

The punchline on so much of this is that "justice" comes with a heavy price tag. I repeat, were it not for an all-star line-up of defenders who raised funds and donated money, three innocent men would still be sitting in prison. Meanwhile an obviously guilty man, James Arthur Ray, remains free on bond while his high priced legal team leverages every possible technicality to get him off. It pays to be rich in this country.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Thank God for Hollywood

And, um, Montclair, New Jersey. I say that because Bruce Sinofsky, one of the filmmakers responsible for putting the West Memphis Three in the spotlight, is from the lovely town I used to call home.

Montclair filmmaker Bruce Sinofsky was home in New Jersey when he heard about a surprise hearing today for three convicted killers in Arkansas, whose story he’s been chronicling since 1993.

Sinofsky and co-director, Joe Berlinger have made three documentaries about the crime. Their Emmy-winning first film, "Paradise Lost: the Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" examined the initial 1994 trial, in which the prosecution built a case around the theory that teenagers killed three 8-year-old boys in a supposed Satanic ritual.

. . .

The movie did spark a grassroots movement called "Free the West Memphis Three." Celebrities including Johnny Depp, Natalie Maines and Metallica took up the cause. Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam was in Arkansas for the release today.

In the trailer for their upcoming third documentary in the Paradise Lost series, Damien Echols tells the filmmakers that he would be dead were it not for their involvement. Sadly, he's right. Had the strange case not been preserved in film and broadcast on HBO, the West Memphis Three would be just three more inadequately represented poor people run over by the wheels of an aggressive justice system. And Damien Echols would have been executed years ago for a crime he didn't commit. That's a hard and painful truth and it reflects poorly on American jurisprudence.

Last night on CNN David Mattingly described Damien Echols to Anderson Cooper:

Well he is very intellectual. He seems very smart, very articulate. And a lot of people argue that he has a certain charisma that's really elevated the profile of this case. If he was just a typical poor kid from Arkansas with no personality, he might have disappeared on death row and so would these two, other two young men. But instead there was something about him that fascinated people. They kept coming back, kept talking to him. This case stayed alive and now he and those other two are free men.

It's an irony I've considered before. The very uniqueness that put Echols in the sights of the West Memphis police, after the gruesome discovery of three dead children, has saved him from the executioner. There's no arguing that he has a larger than life quality. He wasn't the kind of kid who could disappear in a crowd, even if he wanted to. For many of us who grew up feeling like fish out of water in small towns, Echols's persecution struck a chord. As did his youthful hostility to the town in which he was always destined to be an outsider.

Having lived a large chunk of my life in the aforementioned Montclair and having worked for years in Manhattan, it's been easy to forget how damaging that small town mindset can be. Shortly after moving to Montclair, someone I met at a party said to me, "You don't seem like someone from Ohio."

"They've been telling me that all my life," I said.

Now that I'm living amidst Southern religiosity, thanks to my darling husband's Marine Corps career, I've been forced to consider the small town phenomenon once again and not in an entirely academic sense. I was even accused of witchery in a court of law, recently. Fortunately, I wasn't the one on trial, but it was a stunning reminder that such ignorance and insanity still exists. (True story. Maybe I'll tell it some time.)

I know when I first became aware of the West Memphis Three -- I saw the second documentary first -- I was very affected by Damien Echols. The piercing, intelligent eyes, the intense spirituality and interest in non-traditional religions, the struggle to figure out who he was amongst people he couldn't relate to at all... It all just felt so familiar. "There but for the grace of God..." thought I. 

There's no question that some of us belong in big cities, preferably on coasts. So it's not that surprising that it was actors, writers, musicians, and filmmakers who championed the West Memphis Three. Many of them have no doubt been marginalized at various points in their lives for the very sense of difference that gives them their star quality. Creative types, you know... They're always a little strange.

Johnny Depp said as much. When the usually reclusive star spearheaded coverage of the case on CBS, he explained that he was also "a freak" in small-town Kentucky.

That people with the money and star power to actually do something found so much to relate to in the brooding teenager who made his dark debut in Paradise Lost - The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, has made all the difference. The sad truth is that innocent, poor people without proper legal representation are convicted, jailed, and even executed, all the time. The West Memphis Three would undoubtedly be among those statistics but for the cameras of Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger and the fans their documentaries found among people who also have millions of fans.

Among the "Hollywood Elite" who've put their money and their mojo behind the West Memphis Three, are filmmaker Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, it was revealed Thursday.

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy helmer with Walsh have "played a leading role" financially and legally behind seven years of efforts to get justice for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley Jr.... This has included financing extensive private investigators over a number of years and the uncovering of crucial new DNA evidence. Jackson and Walsh also have been instrumental in hiring some of the country’s leading forensic experts to reevaluate the case and uncover new witnesses, all of which contributed to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision to reopen the case.

Jackson also wrote an impassioned statement on his Facebook page. In it he fleshes out some of the background on the tortured deal that finally set the three men free.

The last two weeks have been very tense, because the State told the three defense teams that they would consider an "Alford Plea" - but it had to be "all or nothing". All three men had to accept the conditions of the plea - if one refused, they would all stay in prison, probably for another 2 to 3 years, until their inevitable retrial, which would have almost certainly found them innocent. When he received the plea offer, Jason Baldwin refused to accept it. And why the hell should he? He's an innocent man, who has had the last 18 years - half his life - robbed by the State of Arkansas. This was a brave and noble stand by Jason, but it created a very tough time for Damien, and his loved ones.

You see, Damien Echols had to get out of prison, Alford Plea or not. Unlike Jason, Damien has spent the full 18 years on death row. He has not seen sky for over 10 years. He has not had sun on his skin for over 10 years. He is shackled hand and foot whenever he leaves his cell. His eyesight has deteriorated. Look at this morning's press conference - see how Damien has his hand over his mouth? It's because he has severe continual dental pain, and has had for years. On Arkansas death row, the only serious dental care they offer is extraction. No point killing men with nice new crowns. Everyone who knows Damien, has been fearful for his health. He's very weak, and frail - and has limited ability to fight off any infection. Up there in the Varner Unit death row, they don't tend to be as interested in basic medical care as your family doctor.

For several nerve-wracking days, Jason was saying no to the "Alford Plea", but he has been confined in a different, much less severe prison environment and had no contact with Damien. Damien's lawyer wrote to Jason, several friends talked with him. They explained Damien's situation to Jason, and he immediately agreed to change his mind. Jason is a decent guy, and did the right thing for his friend, just as he did many years ago when he was offered a much reduced sentence if he testified against Damien. He refused then - because he knows Damien is innocent, as he is - and he wasn't going to take the bait and sell out his friend. He's been in prison ever since as a result.

The people of West Memphis bridled from the beginning against outsider interest and the continuing media attention that put them under a microscope. After the 48 Hours Mystery devoted to the case aired, Police Chief Bob Paudert decried the lack of exonerating evidence that Hollywood provided. It seemed an ironic statement considering that West Memphis police had never produced a single stick of physical evidence in the original case that put three teenagers behind bars. But more than that, it has been thanks to Hollywood figures like Peter Jackson that extensive DNA testing and forensic research was made available to so thoroughly discredit the convictions -- something Judge Laser acknowledged in yesterday's hearing.

There is always a dynamic tension between the communal desire for safety and stability and the need for change and growth. And those who work against the status quo, whether it's through conscious action or just being their own strange selves, push communities out of their comfort zone. There are inevitable social penalties for going against the grain.

Art at its finest challenges assumptions, reflects the foibles of society, and can even change the path of history. And sometimes it saves lives. Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger have arguably saved at least one life with their documentaries. But their work should serve as a wake-up call to an even greater social transformation.

"This case is about the power of film and a main protagonist,” says Nancy Snow, professor of communications at California State University in Fullerton. “Without the 'Paradise Lost' series, you simply would not have the same level of celebrity cheerleading for justice. The main wrongly accused character, Damien Echols [the one defendant who had received a death sentence], has himself become a celebrity author and poet.”

Other observers say there’s a lesson here for investigative writers and broadcasters.

“I think this is actually the media at their best, shining a light on a situation in which the machinery of government apparently failed to do its job,” says Fordham University communications professor Paul Levinson, author of “New New Media.” “It asks the question – 'What other failures of the criminal system are out there?' – and provides the impetus that journalists should get on those cases and investigate them more fully.”

I uploaded the movie trailer to YouTube because I couldn't get the original to play properly but it can be viewed here.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

West Memphis Three Are Free

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin Talk to Press

In a deal described by Damien Echols as "not perfect" and by Jason Baldwin as "not justice," the three men known as the West Memphis Three, who've now spent roughly half their lives in prison, went home to their loved ones. Using a rare legal maneuver called an Alford Plea, they have entered guilty pleas without admitting guilt.

In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. The defendant may plead guilty yet not admit all the facts that comprise the crime. An Alford plea allows defendant to plead guilty even while unable or unwilling to admit guilt.

As proof that the law and the truth can be miles apart, Prosecutor Scott Ellington admitted in the press conference posted below that it was extremely unlikely that they could prove the charges in a new trial. He also conceded that a new trial was pretty much inevitable.

I believe that the allegations of misconduct on behalf of a juror in the Echols and Baldwin trial could have led to a new trial being ordered by the Circuit Court or the Federal Court. I believe it would be practically impossible after eighteen years to put on a proper case against the defendants in this case after such extended litigation. Even if the State were to prevail in a new trial, sentences would be different and appeals would then ensue... Since the original convictions two of the victims families have joined forces with the defense and publicly proclaimed the innocence of the defendants. The mother of one of the witnesses who testified against Damien Echols has now publicly questioned her daughter's truthfulness. The State crime lab employee who gathered fiber evidence at the homes of Echols and Baldwin has died since the trial, the original trial. In light of these circumstances I decided to entertain plea offers that were being proposed by the defense.

Ellington admitted that the fear of civil suits from the defendants was a motivating factor.

I mean with their entry of a plea of guilty we have, uh, removed the question of uh, um, of, uh, uh, uh, them filing a civil lawsuit against the state that could result in many millions of dollars...

Those are really the money quotes. The State knows full well that they won't be able to get a new conviction and they're scared of millions of dollars in damages being awarded to the wrongfully convicted men. Ellington is doing a valiant job of saving face for the State, though, insisting that he believes they are guilty and hopes that they have been rehabilitated.

The juror misconduct issue to which he repeatedly refers I covered here some months ago. The Arkansas Supreme Court determined that both new DNA results and the allegations that jury foreman Kent Arnold had acted improperly merited reconsideration of the case. An evidentiary hearing scheduled for this coming December would almost certainly have resulted in new trials. The deal reached today saves the State from suffering that indignity.

Post-Hearing Press Conference

Today's hearing, which was attended by Natalie Maines, Eddie Vedder, and throngs of less famous supporters of the West Memphis Tree was bittersweet. Three men are finally free and with their loved ones. Damien Echols is now free to be with his wife Lorri Davis whom he met after he was convicted and who has worked tirelessly for his freedom. But it's hard to call it justice. They've spent their youths inside prison cells for a crime they didn't commit and they still stand convicted of that crime. Worse, they can't sue so they have no recourse.

Easily the greatest injustice to come out of today's proceedings is that the State considers the matter closed and will not be pursuing any further investigation into the deaths of the three eight year old boys, Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore.

Jason Baldwin was vocal in his condemnation of the deal. He said today at the press conference also posted below that he had initially rejected it. He reconsidered and took the deal because Damien Echols was on death row and still stood a chance of being executed. He took the deal to save a life. In one of the most moving moments of today's proceedings Damien thanked him publicly and the two men embraced.

John Mark Byers Vents His Spleen

Mark Byers, stepfather of the deceased Christopher Byers, also vigorously criticized the deal earlier today as he waited outside the court building for the hearing to start. Byer's said to a cheering crowd:

This is not right and the people of Arkansas need to stand up and raise hell 'cause three innocent men are gonna have to claim today that they're guilty for a crime they didn't know and that's BULLSHIT!

Byers is a real character and his theatricality made him a suspect in the eyes of many viewers of the two documentaries that brought this case to the attention of the public. He said today that embarrassed as he was by his own on-screen behavior, he's happy to have been the foil if it meant keeping the pressure on to get these men released.

Because I've been under the gun for fourteen years because of my actions in two movies. And I stand right here today and say if my actions in those two movies kept this alive for those men to get their freedom then praise God that I acted like a fool and HBO got it on camera and it kept it alive. I'd do it again.

Steven Branch, the father of the late Stevie Branch, also had harsh words for the deal but for a different reason. He remains convinced that the three are guilty. His reasons? Well, for one thing, he claims that Damien Echols wants to go to Salem, Massachusetts for Halloween. To Branch's way of thinking this flies directly in the face of his claims of not practicing Satanism. I don't know if Echols is planning to go to Salem. I couldn't find any media reporting of it. But I can't think of a more obvious choice. Many people, including myself, have reasonably compared the case of the WM3 to the witch trials. My question to Steven Branch would be, does he really think the people who were hanged in Salem were devil worshippers? I mean does anyone still think that in this day and age?

In a truly bizarre turn, Branch accused family members of the dead boys (including his ex-wife Pam Hobbs) who'd gone to "the other side," of forsaking him as God did Jesus on the cross. More strangely, he describes Jesus as having had "parents," plural. So, while he's pretty clear on the witchery thing, he may not be so up on his Bible.

Branch also had a melt down during the hearing and had to be forcibly removed from the courtroom. As Judge Laser was going over the fine points of sentencing with the defendants, he started screaming, "Your honor, if you go through with this you're gonna open Pandora's box... You're gonna give 'em the key to it." As he was dragged out of the court he could still be heard screaming, "This is wrong, y'all."

Judge David Laser

In the hearing which was not aired live but was streamed later by CNN, the judge conditionally set a new trial on the basis of new evidence. The prosecutors entered new, modified charges of three counts first degree murder for both Echols and Baldwin and one charge of first degree murder and two charges of second degree murder for Misskelley. They took capitol murder off the table.

In accordance with the plea agreement, all three waived their right to a jury trial and plead guilty but simultaneously avowed their innocence.

Laser: Having heard those statements, uh, Mr. Echols, what, how do wish to plead in this case?

Echols: Your honor I am innocent of these charges but I'm entering an Alford guilty plea today based on the advice of my counsel and my understanding that it's in my best interest to do so given the entire record of the case.

. . .

Laser: Mr., uh, Baldwin, uh, having heard the statement made by the State as to a portion of the proof that's expected in this case, how do you choose to plead in this case?

Baldwin: Your Honor, first of all, I'm innocent of murdering Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, and Stevie Branch. However, after serving eighteen years in the penitentiary for such, I agree that it's in the State's best interest as well as my own that based upon North Carolina vs. Alford that I plead guilty to first degree murder [unintelligible].

. . .

Laser: The same as relates to you Mr. Misskelley, how do you wish to plead in response to the provable charges in this case?

Misskelley: I am pleading guilty under North Carolina vs. Alford [unintelligible] so ruled, although I'm innocent, this plea is in my best interest.

The whole thing had the feeling of a sort of mock trial with Judge Laser stammering and pausing as if he were reading lines in a dress rehearsal he'd just gotten the script for. It all felt like a sham... because it was. They even have a kind of pretend probation called suspended imposition of sentence, in which they don't have to report to a parole officer or anything but they do have to keep their noses clean for the next ten years.

Judge Laser spoke at length to the chamber and explained that he knew there were strong emotions on both sides and that this solution would not "make the pain go away." In a break from the typical hostility to celebrities and other "outsiders" who've stuck their noses into West Memphis business expressed by so many public officials through the years, Judge Laser openly thanked supporters for their interest in justice. He thanked attorneys who'd worked pro bono and people who'd raised funds for DNA research and other testing that was beyond the means of the State. It was a rather unsubtle nod to Natalie Maines and Eddie Vedder who were in the courtroom.

Nothing can make the pain go away for anyone involved in this case. Nothing will bring back the lives of those three children and nothing will restore eighteen years lost to three innocent men. But this strange, cockeyed plea agreement is a place to start.

All information on the trial comes from news articles with provided links or CNN's live feed. All quotes and paraphrased statements that are not linked to a source document are my best attempt to transcribe material from live broadcasts.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

BREAKING: Will the WM3 Finally Be Free?

Just posted to the WM3 Twitter page: Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley have left the prison with all their belongings and are not expected to return to prison.

I read earlier this evening that they would be attending a hastily called meeting tomorrow with the judge assigned to their upcoming evidentiary hearing.

The evidentiary hearing was scheduled for December. The surprise hearing tomorrow alone suggests a major development is at hand. The buzz in the defense bar community is that the news is beyond major. Until now, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office has fought vigorously against new proceedings for the defendants and in support of their convictions. A development tomorrow in which he joined in a defense suggestion would be momentous, indeed. Freedom for the WM3? The speculation today includes that possibility, though questions are numerous about how you'd reach such an outcome and, if it were to happen, whether it would include pronouncements on guilt or innocence or state liability.

The judge's office released this statement about Friday's hearing:

The court will take up certain matters pertaining to the cases of defendants Baldwin, Echols and Misskelley on Friday, August 19. One session will be conducted out of public presence with all defendants present and another session will be conducted in open court. The session conducted in chambers will likely begin at 10 a.m. followed by a public session which will begin about 11 a.m. Space will be limited for the public session — first to the parties, counsel and court personnel, then to family members of the victims and family members of defendants with remaining seating to be occupied by media representatives and the public. There will be approximately 15 minutes between the chamber session and open session for media and public to be seated. Miss Stephanie Harris, Arkansas Supreme Court communication counsel, will be present on Friday to assist with implementation and will be the court's intermediary with public and press.

A local station reported a few hours ago that a deal has been reached to release two of two of the three.

If you want to see what can happen when charges of witchery and "Satanic Panic" really take hold, look no further than the West Memphis Three. It makes the Christine O'Donnell saga look a lot less funny. These three young men have spent half their lives in prison for wearing black and listening to Metallica.

Dare we hope that this will be the end of that very long nightmare?

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Major Victory for the West Memphis Three

Finally! A sane decision from an Arkansas court. And the first ray of sunlight in a dark, legal tunnel that has stolen half the lives of three men and failed to find justice for the deaths of three little boys. In a unanimous decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled for evidentiary hearings to be scheduled for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley.

As explained here, attorneys sought a new trial for the three men a couple of years ago with evidence including DNA results that completely excluded the West Memphis Three but implicated the stepfather of one of the slain boys. Judge David Burnett, who has the rare distinction of having dismissed multiple appeals on this case which he himself officiated, predictably dismissed the DNA and other evidence.

In a December 2009 article in the Arkansas Law Review, David S. Mitchell Jr. examined Burnett's denial of Echols' appeal for a new trial, under a statute passed by the legislature in 2001. That law provided a way for persons convicted of a crime to bring before a court new evidence produced by testing methods that were not available at the time of his trial.

Mitchell wrote that Burnett's interpretation of the statute “eviscerated its purpose” and thereby “failed to meet the Arkansas Legislature's goal of accounting for the ability of new technology to accomplish the mission of criminal law — to punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent.”

It would seem the High Court agrees, ruling that the DNA evidence must be considered and delivering a stern rebuke to Burnett.

Echols' attorneys called Thursday's decision a "landmark victory" and praised the high court for allowing Echols to pursue his claims of innocence. Prosecutors sought to limit what evidence could be introduced under the state's DNA law, which the Legislature passed in 2001 to give inmates an avenue to pursue exoneration.

. . .

The Supreme Court rebuked Circuit Court Judge David Burnett for not holding a hearing on the DNA evidence before rejecting Echols' request for a new trial in 2008. Burnett had ruled that the crime-scene DNA evidence - which shows no trace of Echols or the two other men convicted of the murders - was legally inconclusive and not enough to prove innocence.

"While there is a significant dispute in this case as to the legal effects of the DNA test results, it is undisputed that the results conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested," the court wrote Thursday.

The High Court also weighed in on the issue of possible juror misconduct. 

In a surprise move, Chief Supreme Court Justice Jim Hannah wrote that the issue of jury bias also can be considered.

Legal observers predicted the high court would stay clear of the issue of jury misconduct because jury deliberations are considered secret.

. . .

That evidence was the confession of Misskelley, who has been described as borderline mentally retarded. Misskelley was interrogated for 12 hours and later recanted and refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin.

Reece, a former Arkansas Supreme Court law clerk, said the jury misconduct issue alone should be enough for a Circuit Court judge to grant a new trial.

That was certainly my reaction when I read about jury foreman Kent Arnold's active advocacy for prosecution based on excluded evidence. The account of attorney Lloyd Warford, whom Arnold had retained to defend his brother in a sexual molestation case, describes a juror who used passive deception to be placed on the jury for a case he'd already made up his mind about. Arnold expressed frustration at the ineptitude of the prosecutors and insisted the excluded confession should be available to jurors. He also dismissed Warford's explanation of false confessions and how they typically occur with  mentally handicapped defendants. He used his role as foreman to do the job he thought the prosecutors were failing so miserably at; convincing the jury to convict.

As prosecutors continued with their case, jurors realized they didn't have fingerprints, hairs, blood, semen or saliva linking the defendants to the crime.

Warford said: "Eventually, Kent said this prosecutor has not done his job and that if the prosecution didn't come up with something powerful the next day, there was probably going to be an acquittal."

Arnold vowed: "If anyone is going to convince this jury to convict, it is going to have to be me."

Arnold asked Warford for tips on swaying a jury. When Warford told Arnold he couldn't discuss that, Arnold quipped: "What if I pay you to tell what I need to say to get this guy?"

The role of the jury foreman is yet another example of the glaring failure of jurisprudence that took place in West Memphis, AK. Let's hope this marks the turning of the tide and that some sort of justice will finally be done.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Satanic Panic and the WM3

Click for Video

I've been watching some of the extra footage from Saturday's 48 Hours Mystery episode, covered in full here. This interview with former FBI Behavioral Science Unit investigator Ken Lanning is really worth a look. As is fairly common knowledge now, the 80s media obsession with Satanic cults turned out to be much ado about nothing. Lanning investigated allegations of incidents and ultimately found no evidence of this practice occurring anywhere in the country. And absolutely no evidence of any Satanic ritual was ever found in connection to the Robin Hood Hill murders. Satanic ritual murder was the conclusion reached in West Memphis not because of any ceremonial objects or altars -- there were none -- but because of the gruesomeness of the crime. It was a way people could make sense of the inexplicable murder of innocent children.Then they focused on the person most likely to be a Satanist; the boy who dressed in black, listened to Metallica, and was, well, a little unusual.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Johnny Depp Boosts Media Interest in the WM3

If you missed last night's 48 Hours Mystery episode on Johnny Depp and his public support for the West Memphis Mystery, video of the entire show is posted below. It covers most of the important elements of the case and has some really moving interviews. The show focuses almost exclusively on supporters of the WM3, not on the Arkansas court system that convicted them and continues to stand by the verdict. Probably because no one from the prosecution would talk to 48 Hours. The most telling statement in the entire show: "Prosecutors turned down our requests for interviews."

As I've noted previously, the prosecution and Judge Burnett have really dug in their heels. Media, celebrity, and public attention, have only hardened their resolve against the "second guessing" of outsiders. Arkansas courts have repeatedly rejected things like expert testimony on DNA and forensics that cut the legs out from under the case that convicted Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley. After all, they convicted them without any credible physical evidence. Why should physical evidence matter now?

There has also been a flurry of media attention preceding the airing of the show, from within CBS, but also print outlets. Depp has been subjected to some of the same celebrity bashing snark that Natalie Maines enjoyed when she made her public plea from the usual suspects. The New York Post reports that "Johhny Depp promotes kid's movie by discussing satanic murders."

Johnny Depp may have fallen through a rabbit hole. To promote his movie version of "Alice in Wonderland," he's advocating the release of three men convicted of murdering three boys in a suspected satanic ritual.

But their own Linda Stasi has a different take.

Think back 17 long years. Do you remember how every talk show was obsessed with the same hot topic -- teenage Satanism? Heavy metal, it was suggested, led to Satanism which naturally led to ritualistic murder.

Even though the FBI never had evidence of even one so-called Satanic murder, the national TV talk show atmosphere became very 17th-century Salem witch trials.

. . .

That "proof" came in 1993 with the brutal murders of three little boys at a creek in Arkansas and the hasty conviction of three teenage boys for the killings.

Why? Because one of the boys wore black, had crazy "metal" hair and looked like what the juvenile officer in their town thought a teen Satanist would look like.

There's also an excellent write-up in Salon defending Depp's interest in the case.

Forget the fact that the satanic sacrifice angle has been dubious from the get-go. Forget the lack of DNA evidence to tie the suspects to the crime. Forget, also, that Depp is not doing "48 Hours" to shill his movie. Yep, Johnny Depp wants to unleash devil-worshiping murderers on the children of America! PS, go see "Alice in Wonderland"!

Or maybe the famously press-shy Depp has other motives, like believing in the story. He's certainly in good company. Other celebrities who've advocated for the West Memphis Three include Eddie Vedder (who co-wrote the song "Army Reserve" with Echols), Metallica,  the Dixie Chicks,  Henry Rollins and Margaret Cho. Even "South Park" co-creator Trey Parker, who has made of career of skewering self-righteous stars and their doofy do-gooder public displays, has championed them. The mother of  victim Stevie Branch, Pamela Hobbs, has also asserted she believes in the innocence of Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley.

Given all that evidence, perhaps Depp, the serious and committed actor, environmental activist and parent, is likely not also a fan of child-murdering Satanists. Perhaps one of the biggest movie stars in the world actually gives a damn about righting what is a bungled murder investigation at best and, at worst, a horrific miscarriage of justice in the American trial system. Perhaps he's so passionate about the issue that he's willing to go on a lurid television show to speak out about it. Maybe the guy whose movies so often charm and delight children actually cares about kids -- and not just the wide-eyed popcorn eaters who sit in movie theaters, but three little boys who died on a May evening in the Arkansas woods, and a trio of former misfit teens who've spent the past 16 years in prison for their deaths.

CBS affiliate WREG had a good sit down interview with John Mark Byers, the father of the slain Christopher Byers. Byers, who emerged from the Paradise Lost documentaries as one of the most colorful characters, expressing on film his homicidal rage at the WM3, has made news for his complete reversal and advocacy for a new trial.

There's not a lot of new material in any of these reports for people who've been following the case for years, but it should provide food for thought for those who are unfamiliar with this continuing travesty.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.