48 Hours and Paradise Lost; West Memphis Three

[sistersleuth]

AR Supreme Court Grants WM3 a New Hearing
Posted: Nov 04, 2010 4:15 PM PDT Updated: Nov 04, 2010 6:44 PM PDT

Major developments in the West Memphis Three case. The Arkansas Supreme Court has ordered that all three men convicted of the 1993 murders of three second graders get a new hearing. It's the biggest development in the case in its 17 year history. The ruling means the defense can now present evidence not presented at trial, including DNA evidence defense attorneys say exonerates the defendants.



The ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court comes five weeks after the court heard oral arguments in death row inmate Damien Echols' case.



The ruling read in court Thursday morning "CR-081493 Damien Wayne Echols versus the state of Arkansas from Craighead Circuit Western District reversed and remanded."



In a unanimous decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting a new evidentiary hearing for death row inmate Damien Echols, and Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley who are serving life sentences. Known around the world as the West Memphis Three they were convicted of murdering three eight year old boys in West Memphis in the early 90s.



Lorri Davis, Echols' wife says, "For me it's been 14 years of my life working for this and for Damien, Jason and Jessie, it's been 17 almost 18 years, so it's a lot to take in in one moment."



Capi Peck, co-founder of Arkansas Take Action says, "Finally the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. We could not be more excited. It was unanimous. I have to say I had lost faith in our judicial system but it has been restored today.. We're also very pleased this just does not address Damien Echols it has major implications for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley and for every falsely accused and incarcerated person in the Arkansas prison system. This is huge for Arkansas."



Stunned and thrilled Echols' wife says she shared the news with her husband by phone.



Davis says, "I told him well this is the beginning and he said no quite frankly Lorri this is the end. and he's right it is."



In addition to DNA evidence defense attorneys plan to present forensic evidence they say disproves the state's theory that the killings were part of a satanic ritual, and they also plan to present evidence of juror misconduct.



Judge David Burnett, a newly elected state senator who has presided over the case from the start will no longer be involved with the case.





Defense attorneys are now asking the Attorney General's Office and the Prosecuting Attorney for the Second Judicial District to join with them to seek a stipulated order skipping the evidentiary hearing and granting them a new trial.



Davis says, "….because an evidentiary hearing is going to cost the state of Arkansas a substantial amount of funding and to have that step when we are going to get a new trial anyway, it's absolutely the case, we will so let's just move this along."



The Prosecuting Attorney, Mike Walden says he plans to follow the Arkansas Supreme Court's order and move forward expeditiously with an evidentiary hearing. He said a new judge will likely be assigned to case within a matter or weeks and then that judge would decide where the hearing would be and if all three men would have a joint hearing.



Meantime, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel says he'll continue defending the guilty verdicts of the West Memphis Three. McDaniel says he's in the process of reviewing the court's ruling and says in a statement says, "we respect the decision handed down by the supreme court and my office intends to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the jury verdicts in this case."

 

[Nova]

I agree with Nova again! Dirty Larry I took your advice and read the transcripts of the confessions and most of the information regarding Jessie, which is my starting point and you don't need any fabrication - you don't need a degree to see that Jesse certainly lacks intelligence. Whether or not a few IQ points were shaved off intentionally as you assert, is a moot point because Jesse is NOT intelligent; Jessie is uneducated and he may even have arrested development, but since I'm no PhD or MD I can't state any of that for sure.

What I can state is that trying so hard to make it seem as though there is no merit to the argument that Jessie is of lower intelligence and fits the profile of someone who could be easily influenced or led (and there was plenty of leading in the police questioning) errodes your credibility because it's just plain obvious. A fact is a fact.

Some people don't seem to understand the adversarial system. If a defense attorney has two i.q. tests for a defendant, it is usually the lawyer's obligation to argue for the lower one. (By the same token, the prosecution is obligated to argue for the higher score.)

That some people insist this amounts to "manufacturing" evidence is a complete misunderstanding of how our system works.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

His intelligence level, maturity level, education level, whether he reasonably believed he was free to go, his AGE for gosh sakes, the size of the room - all things must be considered to prove that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived these rights and gave this confession and I just don't see it. So basically whether test results were manipulated or not, the factor is that Jessie was not and adult, was not mature, intelligent, or educated and could have been psychologically incapable of getting a fair shake in that interrogation room. End of story.

I would like to add another wrinkle to this concept. Consider the laws regading statutory rape. Basically, a young girl cannot consent to sex because the law deems that she is too young to make that decision. In my opinion, interrogating a mentally-challenged suspect is similar, especially one who is underaged and functioning at a lower level than his/her chronological age. I realize that for the police to determine who is mentally-challenged and who is not might be prohibitive. So, how about this solution? Don't question anyone who is a suspect, especially in a capital crime, without an attorney present who is representing the suspect's interests. I don't believe that the delay this practice would cause would be great, and I believe that it could possibly cut down on the number of false or coerced confessions that are happening now.

 

[Nova]

Just a general comment on documentaries, such as the Paradise Lost films.

There appears to be this general misconception that a "true" or "valid" documentary is neutral with regards to its subject. This is not the case.

In theory, documentarians are supposed present film of actual events and interviews (though unfortunately, "reenactments" have become all too common), but that doesn't mean they have to emulate those bland science films we used to watch in junior high school.

Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will is arguably the greatest documentary ever made. It is decidedly pro-Nazi and one hopes viewers keep that fact in mind when they watch it today (which everyone should).

Errol Morris' doc, The Thin Blue Line, was clear in its belief that its subject, Randall Adams, had been wrongly convicted; and that belief turned out to be true.

Michael Moore's films have obvious agendas and he makes no bones about that fact.

And because of length, every documentary leaves out something, usually segments that don't support the point of view of the filmmaker.

So it's right to keep in mind that the makers of PL believe the WM3 were railroaded, and no one need take their conclusions at face value. But they are also valuable resources and we needn't dismiss everything in them.

By the same token, people lie under oath all the time, usually without being prosecuted for perjury. Trial transcripts are also important resources, but they, too, should be viewed with some skepticism.

 

[ziggy]

Any insight as to why the AG is so hell bent on upholding the convictions? What's his relation to the prior investigators/judges etc.?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

He says it's his "constitutional duty" to defend the guilty verdicts. In my opinion, he's trying to play both ends against the middle. He wants to defend the verdicts to try to save face for the judge, the detectives, the police, etc., but he is hedging his bets with the statement in case the convictions are vacated. Then, he can say, "Well, I had to try, but I really thought they were innocent" or something like that. He's a typical politician, in my opinion.

 

[Nova]

He says it's his "constitutional duty" to defend the guilty verdicts. In my opinion, he's trying to play both ends against the middle. He wants to defend the verdicts to try to save face for the judge, the detectives, the police, etc., but he is hedging his bets with the statement in case the convictions are vacated. Then, he can say, "Well, I had to try, but I really thought they were innocent" or something like that. He's a typical politician, in my opinion.

I know nothing about the man, but this post has such a ring of truth, I can't help but believe it.

Bureaucracies have a tendency to protect themselves almost like living organisms. Truth and justice be damned.

I don't have a link and I can't remember the defendant's name, but I recently watched a program (48 Hours or Dateline) about a man out here in California who spent almost 30 years in prison for supposedly killing his own mother, even though a private eye and a detective within the police department showed that the evidence against him had been falsified by the original investigators.

And STILL the D.A. fought the guy's release every step of the way. The wrongfully accused guy was finally released and even then, the D.A. tried to have him re-incarcerated on the technicality that some paper or another had been filed too late. It was really unbelievable.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I saw that, too, Nova. I believe the falsely convicted man was Brian Lister. IIRC, the main problem there was corruption within the LAPD. I'm not sure that there isn't a little of that going on in West Memphis. The West Memphis police department was under investigation at the time of the crimes. Now that the original trial judge (who up until now has heard all appeals to the Second Circuit), the prosecutor, the lead detective and other minor players are out of the picture, maybe justice will finally be served. The AG will probably not present the State's case, and, if it's the same guy that presented the State's case at the Oral Arguments, I'm feeling excellent about the outcome. I feel good regardless of who presents the State's case, but that guy at the Oral Arguments was pathetic.

 

[Nova]

I saw that, too, Nova. I believe the falsely convicted man was Brian Lister. IIRC, the main problem there was corruption within the LAPD. I'm not sure that there isn't a little of that going on in West Memphis. The West Memphis police department was under investigation at the time of the crimes. Now that the original trial judge (who up until now has heard all appeals to the Second Circuit), the prosecutor, the lead detective and other minor players are out of the picture, maybe justice will finally be served. The AG will probably not present the State's case, and, if it's the same guy that presented the State's case at the Oral Arguments, I'm feeling excellent about the outcome. I feel good regardless of who presents the State's case, but that guy at the Oral Arguments was pathetic.

That sounds right, CR. The LAPD is rather famous for its corruption, apparently.

But I think even in departments that are more honest, there is an almost automatic impulse to "stand by" one's fellow officers, which usually means supporting the original verdict.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post. It's way past time the "cast" changed in this "production."

 

[costalpilot]

about 1/4 of the way into the 48 hours story, it showed footage, pictures, of Hollywood types that have spoken out for the convicted three. It then said "despite all this, the courts refused...." or words to that effect.

at that point, everything the show presented was suspect to me. I really don't care what a few celebrities think about anything, but the producers of the show obviously do.

And they obviously wanted ME to be impressed. I'm not. Not by that. I would have been more impressed had they (the producers) been more objective.

I was impressed by a few points they made in the show. I think I was equally impressed by the lack of objectivity. Had they been more objective, I would be more sympathetic to their arguments.

 

[iluvmua]

I watched the 48 Hours program, I was not impressed.
as usual it was to make the WM3 look innocent.

of course EVERYTHING is about the WM3 and not about the TRUE 3 victims of this case.

People can spin this whatever way they want and believe whatever they want but as far as i'm concerned my mind is pretty much made up.

UNLESS there is some SOLID evidence against Terry Hobbs and/or his friend, David Jacoby.

 

[Melanie]

I'm watching Paradise Lost, and in Jesse's trial he mentions that Damien was "screwing him (one of the little boys) and stuff". There HAS to be DNA if that's the case -- something. And why did LE only record 45 minutes of a 12 hour interrigation.

I'm very new to this case, so I still have a lot of diggin to do.

Thanks to everyone who is sharing. I'm not convinced of their innocent though.

MOO

Mel

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If you read the autopsy reports, they state that there was no evidence of sexual penetration. Obviously, as you stated, if sodomy had occurred, DNA or some sort of evidence would be present. None of the biological evidence found at the discovery site has been linked to the WM3. Another way to say this is that all of the biological evidence found at the discovery site excludes the WM3. Obviously, the statement about how little of Jessie's statement to the police was actually recorded is very important. The statement Jessie gave had to be "corrected" by the police so that a judge would even accept it. In fact, none of the three statements Jessie gave agree with each other or with the evidence known at the time. With each statement, Jessie tried to tell the authorities what he thought they wanted to hear, trying to match his statements to what he heard at his trial. The second and third statements were made IMO in an attempt to get out of the situation he was in. Let me make one thing clear. I have supported the innocence of the WM3 long before any celebrity lent his or her support, so I was not swayed by the celebrities. What makes me believe in the innocence of the Three is the total lack of any real evidence that links them to the crime. Damien's actions and statements at the trial and to the documentary cameras are those of an alienated teen who wants to maintain his "bad boy" persona. In my 25-year career teaching high school I dealt with many of these teens. Was it foolish for him to say and do the things he said and did back in 1993 and 1994? Of course it was. That doesn't make him a murderer. That makes him a foolish teenager. Does his psychological history make him a murderer? No. It might make him a suspect, but it doesn't make him a murderer. He became a suspect early on in the investigation, and IMO the WMPD simply didn't look elsewhere. Now that DNA evidence tying one step father and his friend to the discovery site has been found, maybe we will begin to get to the truth in this case. New evidentiary hearings (maybe one joint hearing) have been ordered for all three defendants that will include, by order of the Arkansas State Supreme Court, all the evidence that has come to light since 1994. This will possibly include accusations of jury misconduct in the original Echols/Baldwin trial plus the DNA tested in 2007 by new methods and identified to a 97.5% degree of accuracy to belong to Terry Hobbs, the step father of Stevie Branch. The beard hair which resulted in the DNA match was found in one of the ligatures binding Michael Moore. The other hair found at the discovery site has been matched to a 93% degree of accuracy to David Jacoby, a friend of Terry Hobbs. In a deposition in the Hobbs vs. Pasdar defamation suit (which was unsuccessful), Jacoby states that he and Hobbs were playing guitars together on the night of May 5th between 5:15 and 6:00. Later, Jacoby states that he did help search for the missing boys, first with Terry in the car (twice) and later, after Pam Hobbs got off of work, on foot. But Jacoby denies going into the RHH woods as far as the discovery ditch. My theory is that TH picked up the DJ hair when they were playing guitars and later left it on a tree stump, along with a footprint, when he moved the boys' bodies from the murder site to the discovery ditch. IMO, the boys were murdered in or near a nearby manhole, dumped in the manhole for concealment purposes, and moved to the ditch in the wee hours of May 6th. Why was TH washing curtains, bed clothes and clothing on May 6th? Why is he so evasive in his answers to the WMPD when they finally questioned him in 2007? Why do Pam and her entire family now believe that he was involved in the murders? Why does Jacoby's account of the events of May 5th differ from Hobbs' account, leaving several gaps in time during which Hobbs is without an alibi? These are just some of the questions that I hope will be answered at the evidentiary hearing which, thankfully, will not be presided over by David Burnett. The show 48 Hours may be biased, but the convictions of these three men are in error, and it is my hope and prayer that the hearing will bring forth enough new evidence to point the WMPD toward the real perpetrator of these vicious murders.

 

[iluvmua]

I'm watching Paradise Lost, and in Jesse's trial he mentions that Damien was "screwing him (one of the little boys) and stuff". There HAS to be DNA if that's the case -- something. And why did LE only record 45 minutes of a 12 hour interrigation.

I'm very new to this case, so I still have a lot of diggin to do.

Thanks to everyone who is sharing. I'm not convinced of their innocent though.

MOO

Mel

Hi and welcome, a good place to start is at the Callahan site. This has ALL the information you could ever want on this case.

If you have any questions this is the board to go to : (They will answer any question you have about this case).

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

Callahan site: http://callahan.8k.com/

Hope this helps

 

[Compassionate Reader]

mgardner,

In addition to the Callahan site mentioned above, please also check out www.wm3blackboard.com. This board is dedicated to the case and to the freeing of the WM3 and to finding justice for the three murdered boys. The other board mentioned above, the Hoax board, takes the position that the three in prison are guilty. If you truly want to investigate, be sure to investigate from both sides.

 

[Mary456]

And why did LE only record 45 minutes of a 12 hour interrigation.

Mel

That is a fallacy which has been circulating for many years now. Jessie was only questioned for about 2 1/2 hours before he confessed.

Just a suggestion...if you want unbiased information, you're much better off reading the trial transcript. The second Paradise Lost film is full of misinformation. In fact, Berlinger and Sinofsky have admitted, in so many words, that they made the second film to create controversy (where none really existed in the first place).

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Jessie was questioned for longer than 45 minutes, and only 45 minutes was recorded. That is the problem. Whether the questioning took 12 hours or 3 hours, the point is less than half of the interview was recorded.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

According to the WMPD time log for June 6, 1993, Jessie Misskelley arrived at the station at about 9:45 am. They read him his rights at 11:00 am. He began a polygraph at about 11:30 am. The polygraph was completed at about 12:15 pm. At 12:45 pm, the interview continued with Gitchell as the interrogator. The taped "confession" began at 2:44 pm and concluded at 3:18 pm. At 3:45 pm a second interview began to "clear up some discrepancies." This interview concluded at about 5:00 pm. At 6:15 pm Jessie was fed. This means that he was in police custody from 9:45 am until 6:15 pm without any food. That's eight and a half hours. True, he wasn't being actively questioned the entire time, but he was in custody, without a parent or an attorney present, and probably terrified. Who wouldn't be? As to the polygraph, he was told that he failed it when actually the only question he showed deception on was regarding using drugs. In short, the police took advantage of his youth and his mental deficiency to get a "confession" that had to be "corrected" on the day it was obtained. Even after two more attempts to say what the police wanted to hear, Jessie was unable to get the facts straight as to the crime. His last "confession" was in February of 1994. I have seen several times people stating that Jessie just keeps on confessing. This simply is not true. He has not confessed since February, 1994, on his way to prison when IMO he was trying anything to get out of the unjust situation in which he found himself. This type of behavior is very typical of someone with his limited mental capabilities. I know this from working with students his age and with his mental capabilities when I was a high school teacher. When you read the transcript of his statement, the leading questions by the police are very evident. His confession was coerced IMO, and his subsequent confessions were simply his attempt to "fix" the problem. He wanted to be "in the circle" of the "good guys" and would say anything that he thought they wanted to hear to be there.

 

[ziggy]

Great post above.

I'd like to remind those who believe Jesse's confession ----[warning about to be graphic]: if these teenagers were trying to anally penetrate 2nd graders there would be evidence, either DNA, or anal tears. Someone cannot be anally raped without some sort of tissue trauma or damage.

I also notice that when he told the police that they were "screwing and stuff" the police never tried to clarify what exactly was going on. It was vague and they left it that way on purpose imo.

 

[Nova]

That is a fallacy which has been circulating for many years now. Jessie was only questioned for about 2 1/2 hours before he confessed.

Just a suggestion...if you want unbiased information, you're much better off reading the trial transcript. The second Paradise Lost film is full of misinformation. In fact, Berlinger and Sinofsky have admitted, in so many words, that they made the second film to create controversy (where none really existed in the first place).

With respect, Mary, that doesn't make any sense. How can they "admit" they "made the second film to create controversy" when the first film had already made the case notorious and, indeed, controversial?

Do you have a cite for that "admission"? I'm NOT accusing you of making something up. I just suspect we would interpret the same remark differently.