New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[Miranda!]

. . . . stomping a Great Dane to death only to come back later and burn its hair and skin off with battery acid?

Can you produce any irrefutable evidence that this really ever happened? Hard though it is, I can accept the very sad fact that someone might have dumped a dog's carcass rather than go to the trouble of burying such a large animal in their garden. But no-one to date has managed to find any reference to such a large hound going missing!

My mother used to save any odd sheep skulls or interesting bones found on remote land and give them to a friend for use in setting up items for artists to draw for the 'Still Life' section of their courses! It made a change from the ubiquitous polished fruit bowls or vase of flowers!

Bleaching said skulls in the sun or using something, other than boiling them up, to clean them is surely not an offence nor a sign of potential offending behaviour. Echols' defence mechanism was one of shock and horror in order to avoid normal social interaction. With the rumour mill working overtime in an impoverished small town in the Bible Belt, it is all too easy to see how both his attitude and behaviours came back to bite him. It was far easier for everyone to cope by putting it down to 'satanic influences' rather than facing the reality that 'one of their own people' had committed this horrible crime.

 

[kyleb]

The Echols Defence team wanted to proceed straight to trial rather than

Who exactly was going to be the trial lawyer for Echols? Dennis Riordan is appellate attorney, and Stephen Braga is a DC-fixer who represents sucmbags like Michael Scanlon, a guy who scammed Native America tribes out of at least $20 million and has since been trying to weasel out of paying it back. Surely Echols shopped around for a lawyer with notable murder trial experience given all those millionaire supporters' money, but he was apparently unable to come up with one, and rather settled for Braga to do the string pulling which he specializes in.

Can you produce any irrefutable evidence that this really ever happened?

Well nothing along the lines of a video by any stretch. That said, the witness statements for Baldwin's cousin and girlfriend alone are more evidence than Echols and many of his supporters ever had to justify pointing their finger at Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs, so I don't rightly expect any evidence to meany anything to such people other than what they want it to.

 

[Miranda!]

We can be sentenced to 15 years here but only serve 3 years, partially taking in good behaviour and actions of the prisoner whilst in jail. I referred to it very loosely as I know the legal systems are different as our the cases.

I should have qualified my last post about comparisons. It appears that both attitudes to sentences handed down and the severity of them are poles apart between Europe and USA. I woud a think it is the same for Australia. For starters the concept of a statutory duty of care of prisoners seems minimal, length of sentences are far higher and there seems to be no real policy of rehabilitation to reduce recidivism. Revenge and retribution seem to trump the rest!

 

[reedus23]

Well nothing along the lines of a video by any stretch.

Or any other credible evidence.

That said, the witness statements for Baldwin's cousin and girlfriend alone are

More examples of the wild conjecture and rumor that was already being spread throughout the community without any factual background.

more evidence than Echols and many of his supporters ever had to justify pointing their finger at Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs,

Read callahans 8 objectively. If done, and you create a list side by side, of evidence against Echols, Byers and Hobbs, my bet is the list for Hobbs is the longest and the list for Echols is the shortest.

so I don't rightly expect any evidence to meany anything to such people other than what they want it to.

And I wouldn't expect you to say any differently no matter what is ever discovered or learned.

 

[Miranda!]

since you've chosen to study the case chronologically and hence deprive yourself of the benefit of hindsight.

Hopefully this issue has been responded to in pages I have yet to read. I am catching up on a big back-log here, my apologies. However I feel the need to make the point as comments have been made more than just occasionally!

Reedus23 has repeatedly explained that he is going through the case chronilogically, and explained why.

He is trying, it would seem to me, to 'walk' through the events as they went down.
Step 1. The events leading up to the discovery of the bodies and the subsequent investigation.

At this point an assessment can be made as to whether there is a serious contender in the frame for the murders which the state is able to prosecute.

THEN going through the two trials, in the corrrect order, to see if he feels that a plausible case in both existed beyond reasonable doubt for the convictions to be sound, in his view.

By logging data that has either been exposed since the trials or circumstantial evidence which was not used at the trials is only going to muddy the waters for him in the way he is trying to asses the case. He has even been loathe to view media coverage prior to the verdicts so as not to be influenced by that - despite the fact that most of the jurors had to have been!

He is hunting down the known facts for his assessments, rather than the 'spins' put by the media and the state on much of the circumstantial evidence. If that is the way he wishes to start this tortuous journey then that is both his right and his choice and is likely to lead to a far more interesting conclusion than the way many nons and supporters leap in with a determination about the case already made!!

 

[reedus23]

Hopefully this issue has been responded to in pages I have yet to read. I am catching up on a big back-log here, my apologies. However I feel the need to make the point as comments have been made more than just occasionally!

Reedus23 has repeatedly explained that he is going through the case chronilogically, and explained why.

He is trying, it would seem to me, to 'walk' through the events as they went down.
Step 1. The events leading up to the discovery of the bodies and the subsequent investigation.

At this point an assessment can be made as to whether there is a serious contender in the frame for the murders which the state is able to prosecute.

THEN going through the two trials, in the corrrect order, to see if he feels that a plausible case in both existed beyond reasonable doubt for the convictions to be sound, in his view.

By logging data that has either been exposed since the trials or circumstantial evidence which was not used at the trials is only going to muddy the waters for him in the way he is trying to asses the case. He has even been loathe to view media coverage prior to the verdicts so as not to be influenced by that - despite the fact that most of the jurors had to have been!

He is hunting down the known facts for his assessments, rather than the 'spins' put by the media and the state on much of the circumstantial evidence. If that is the way he wishes to start this tortuous journey then that is both his right and his choice and is likely to lead to a far more interesting conclusion than the way many nons and supporters leap in with a determination about the case already made!!

Many thanks and I couldn't have said it better myself. I have gotten through all of the investigation and have gotten through the two trials at this point. After that, I did begin to venture out into the post-conviction happenings, including the documentaries, though I saved those for last so as not to be influenced by them. I don't know that my conclusion are any more interesting than anyone else's, but I know they are my own conclusions as opposed to regurgitating what someone else says.

Oh, and it is tortuous for sure. For all sides I'm sure because the ultimate reality is that no one knows with certainty who killed the 3 boys, unless one of us was there and witnessed it or was involved, which I doubt.

 

[Miranda!]

To reedus23

I do hope you do not give up on your enormous task of 'walking through' the case as it unfurled from the stand point of the police and then State and the Defence at the trials.

There are a couple of issues, though, that I would like to put you in the picture about. I hope they do not skew your perspective too much!

Judge David Burnett was the original trial lawyer back in '94 and adjudicated at all the subsequent appeals despite being asked on more than one occasion to recuse himself. His last direct involvement were the rule 37 hearings for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. He ruled against the appeals at each and every phase.

He had retired from the bench but asked, I believe, to be the judge for this case up until the end. That end came when he moved in to the political arena. The next appeal was the oral one made on behalf of Echols by Riorden to the Supreme Justices of the State. For the very first time the unanimous ruling went in favour of all three of the convicted. Although the argument presented by Riorden had been for his client alone! To simplify it was to question Burnetts' ruling that DNA evidence did not constitute 'new evidence' to allow for the admission on new test results that were not available back in 93/94.


The second point was the matter of Defence attornies at the original trials. The court appointed one for Misskelley pulled out due to some issue of 'conflict of interest'. Dan Stidham, who was just atarting out, was persuade to take on the task on the belief that all that was required was that he get the best possible plea deal he could as his client to be had made a full confession. Stidham had no trial by jury experience at this point and, obviously, no possible death sentence experience. It took quite a long time for any degree of trust to develop between client and counsel.

On the matter of false confessions. It is now recognised that the individual will is very likely to continue to 'confess' in an effort to please the authorities in the hopes of attaining the same feelings of 'relief' having done what was wanted yet again.

Not only was the first 'confession' both prompted and coerced, which is very obvious from the snippets that were actually recorded, but as he learnt more about what was meant to have happened, his desire to either please or appease those that had the control over him, grew stronger.

More will become obvious as you continue on your jouney of discovery! A lot more.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd like to add one thing to Miranda's excellent summary. Jessie's mental deficiency made it much easier for the police to coerce, "coach," manipulate him into saying what they wanted to hear. Although some will point out that Jessie wasn't technically "mentally retarded," I know, from personal experience teaching those with low IQ's, just how easy they are to manipulate, even those whose IQ's don't quite meet the standard for retardation. So, from the beginning, I gave little credence to Jessie's stories. My opinion has strengthened the more I've learned about this sad travesty of justice.

 

[reedus23]

To reedus23

I do hope you do not give up on your enormous task of 'walking through' the case as it unfurled from the stand point of the police and then State and the Defence at the trials.

There are a couple of issues, though, that I would like to put you in the picture about. I hope they do not skew your perspective too much!

Judge David Burnett was the original trial lawyer back in '94 and adjudicated at all the subsequent appeals despite being asked on more than one occasion to recuse himself. His last direct involvement were the rule 37 hearings for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. He ruled against the appeals at each and every phase.

He had retired from the bench but asked, I believe, to be the judge for this case up until the end. That end came when he moved in to the political arena. The next appeal was the oral one made on behalf of Echols by Riorden to the Supreme Justices of the State. For the very first time the unanimous ruling went in favour of all three of the convicted. Although the argument presented by Riorden had been for his client alone! To simplify it was to question Burnetts' ruling that DNA evidence did not constitute 'new evidence' to allow for the admission on new test results that were not available back in 93/94.


The second point was the matter of Defence attornies at the original trials. The court appointed one for Misskelley pulled out due to some issue of 'conflict of interest'. Dan Stidham, who was just atarting out, was persuade to take on the task on the belief that all that was required was that he get the best possible plea deal he could as his client to be had made a full confession. Stidham had no trial by jury experience at this point and, obviously, no possible death sentence experience. It took quite a long time for any degree of trust to develop between client and counsel.

On the matter of false confessions. It is now recognised that the individual will is very likely to continue to 'confess' in an effort to please the authorities in the hopes of attaining the same feelings of 'relief' having done what was wanted yet again.

Not only was the first 'confession' both prompted and coerced, which is very obvious from the snippets that were actually recorded, but as he learnt more about what was meant to have happened, his desire to either please or appease those that had the control over him, grew stronger.

More will become obvious as you continue on your jouney of discovery! A lot more.

Thanks once again Miranda. I do want to be clear, that since those earlier posts, I have read all of the trial testimony and got through post-conviction hearings. I have not read all of the appellate opinions, though I did read the one that ultimately lead to the Alford Pleas being entered.

And I agree with the things you put forth. Burnett definitely had a pro-prosecution tilt and nothing was going to change as long as he was hearing appeals of his own trials. I'm more convinced of this after having seen his interviews after the WM3 were released.

Agreed about the defense lawyers as well. Most attorneys look to enter plea deals on every case. Few actually have trial experience. Trials are stressful enough. Multiply it by 10 when someone's life is in the balance. Only a very very small percentage of attorneys have actually tried such cases, whereas most prosecuting attorneys' offices have an entire division devoted to capital cases.

 

[Miranda!]

I think the Oral Argument presented by Dennis Riorden to the Supreme Justices of Arkansa, is still available to see in the archives of their website! One of the best doing his best!
I will try to find a link - it was a couple of coputers ago!!
I think this is it!

 

[kyleb]

Here's the transcript to go along with the video. As for the content of Rioden's argument, I completely agree with him on this point:

For example, let's say you had a case in which there was an allegation that a defendant's semen was on the body of a victim in a rape-murder case. If you had DNA results which showed that was not the defendant's semen, that would not in the State's view prove innocence because the defendant could have been an aider and abettor, he could have been at the scene of the crime as they say. He could have been participating in the killing but didn't leave the semen. So DNA is never enough. There has to always be something more in the State’s view. And here's the Catch-22. However while something -- additional evidence of innocence is always required, by law it's not permitted. That is to say the State takes the position that the only evidence other than DNA allowed in a DNA action in this state is evidence of guilt. So DNA is never enough; you always need something more, but you're never allowed to put in anything more.

That is indeed a catch-22, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas was correct to overturn the rulings which created it. In a situation along the lines of semen which isn't from the convected, if that semen can be matched to another individual, and investigating that individual uncovers evidence which suggests those previously convicted might not actually have been involved in the crimes: then those previously convinced should be granted the right to a new new trial so that evidence can be weighted against the evidence which suggest they were innovated in the crimes.

That said, this wasn't anything along the lines of a case where semen can be matched to another individual. Rather, the supposed new DNA evidence is just couple of the few hairs found at the scene which were not from the victims, one of which might be from one of the fathers found on a shoelace, and another which could be from his friend which might not have even wound up at the scene until after the bodies were found. The other two hairs found on that same shoelace quite likely come from another parent of the victims, one of their friends, or perhaps one of the boy's friends, or teacher, or what anyone who associated with any of the aforementioned possibilities.

Having tested two such individuals and found a hair to match each doesn't prove anything but the already well established fact that people who associate with each other tend to wind up with each others hair on themselves. That well establish fact is in no way to reason to suspect anyone else was involved in the murders, let alone to suspect who were convicted are innocent. Also, buried under the illusion that proving a well establish fact suggests the convicted are innocent is the fact that that Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report, a fact which I've yet to find one supporter willing to acknowledge.

 

[reedus23]

Here's the transcript to go along with the video. As for the content of Rioden's argument, I completely agree with him on this point:


That is indeed a catch-22, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas was correct to overturn the rulings which created it. In a situation along the lines of semen which isn't from the convected, if that semen can be matched to another individual, and investigating that individual uncovers evidence which suggests those previously convicted might not actually have been involved in the crimes: then those previously convinced should be granted the right to a new new trial so that evidence can be weighted against the evidence which suggest they were innovated in the crimes.

That said, this wasn't anything along the lines of a case where semen can be matched to another individual. Rather, the supposed new DNA evidence is just couple of the few hairs found at the scene which were not from the victims, one of which might be from one of the fathers found on a shoelace, and another which could be from his friend which might not have even wound up at the scene until after the bodies were found. The other two hairs found on that same shoelace quite likely come from another parent of the victims, one of their friends, or perhaps one of the boy's friends, or teacher, or what anyone who associated with any of the aforementioned possibilities.

Having tested two such individuals and found a hair to match each doesn't prove anything but the already well established fact that people who associate with each other tend to wind up with each others hair on themselves. That well establish fact is in no way to reason to suspect anyone else was involved in the murders, let alone to suspect who were convicted are innocent. Also, buried under the illusion that proving a well establish fact suggests the convicted are innocent is the fact that that Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report, a fact which I've yet to find one supporter willing to acknowledge.

How bad do you think Burnett is kicking himself? If he would have granted a hearing on all of the evidence and then denied the motion for a new trial, this issue wouldn't have been up on appeal and any appeal of the Court's findings following the hearing probably would have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Had he done it correct procedurally, they likely would have deferred to the trial court's decision, whether they agreed with it or not. I suppose the prosecutors are kicking themselves as well for pushing such a position. In my opinion, they tried to take too much advantage of a good thing they had going with Burnett and when they pushed it too far, the Supreme Court reigned them back in.

 

[kyleb]

Have you read Burnett's actual ruling, and if so could you link it? My focus is always on the evidence rather than the procurement matters and drama which surround it, so I'm not particularly familiar with the legal intricacies of this case, and simply responded to Rioden's characterization of Burnett's ruling by taking it at face value. I figure it's at least reasonably accurate as the court overturned the ruling, but I can't rightly answer your question without first reading the transcript of ruling itself.

 

[reedus23]

Have you read Burnett's actual ruling, and if so could you link it? My focus is always on the evidence rather than the procurement matters and drama which surround it, so I'm not particularly familiar with the legal intricacies of this case, and simply responded to Rioden's characterization of Burnett's ruling by taking it at face value. I figure it's at least reasonably accurate as the court overturned the ruling, but I can't rightly answer your question without first reading the transcript of ruling itself.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/img/de_9_10_08_order.html

 

[kyleb]

I thank you for the link. That reads quite different that Roiden's description of it, so at this point I'm left to suspect the justices who overturned the ruling were in error rather than Burnett and the prosecution. I'd really have to look into the matter more to reach and level of certainty on it, and at this point I'm not even sure where on Callahan such documents can be found. Perhaps I'll get around to that at some point, but a friend just dropped by so it certainly won't be tonight.

 

[reedus23]

I thank you for the link. That reads quite different that Roiden's description of it, so at this point I'm left to suspect the justices who overturned the ruling were in error rather than Burnett and the prosecution. I'd really have to look into the matter more to reach and level of certainty on it, and at this point I'm not even sure where on Callahan such documents can be found. Perhaps I'll get around to that at some point, but a friend just dropped by so it certainly won't be tonight.

http://callahan.8k.com/pleadings.html

Obviously in chronological order. If you go off of the date of the order, 9/10/08, you can navigate to what you want. The motions for new trial and all the different responses would be before that order. The appeals and all their filings based on that order would obviously follow. For further reference, the Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion was 11/4/10.

I would read up on it. Applying the statutes the way the prosecution urged, really wouldn't make sense and would defeat the purpose, or even enacting, the statute.

What I was getting at earlier, if I remember correctly because it's been a while since I read it, but Burnett first said the defense's argument is wrong and all that other evidence(animal predation etc.) shouldn't be considered. He then went on, if I'm remembering correctly, to say that even if it is considered, it wouldn't justify a new trial. What he was doing there was setting up a situation where even if the S.Ct. determined he was wrong on the first ruling about whether or not it can be considered, he would still be upheld on appeal because his order goes on to make a ruling on that evidence. (The S.Ct. said he used the wrong standard in making that determination too, again if I remember that correct. But to me, that wouldn't change anything other than the "buzz" words Burnett would have used in his order.)

The thing that really gets Burnett and this ball rolling then is the fact that he didn't give them a hearing, which is REQUIRED "Unless the petition and the files and records of the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief,". There was certainly enough, even if you don't believe it, that one could not say conclusively they were not entitled to relief. That doesn't mean they would even win, the motion could still be denied after a hearing, but you just can't skip the hearing unless the motion is absolutely frivolous essentially.

So my contention is, had Burnett not denied the hearing, it would have been held. ALL of the evidence would have been presented to satisfy that requirement of the statute. Burnett's actual order intimates, and I believe he would have, then denied the motion for new trial. At that point, if the defendants appeal the decision of the trial judge, after a full hearing, they are going to be less apt to reverse and remand or overturn. The standard on appeal would be different and the trial court's determinations on the facts would have been given more deference and would have likely been upheld. The defendants appeals would have been exhausted at that point (in state court) and Burnett would have seen it through to the end.

That's how close things came to a completely different result. One hearing.

 

[kyleb]

but you just can't skip the hearing unless the motion is absolutely frivolous essentially.

Yet how is a motion based on demonstrating the well established fact that people who travel in the same circles often wind up with what can't be excluded as each others' hair on and around themselves anything but frivolous? Regardless, I thank you for the link. I'd clicked on the the pleadings link in the navigation bar at Callahan but had overlooked the Pleadings and Court Opinions link found through that. As I mentioned previously, I've never had much interest in procedural matters, so I'm glad you're around and willing to help me sort through that.

 

[Cappuccino]

The hearing wasn't granted because of the Hobbs hair, KyleB. It was granted because when the DNA tests which were mutually agreed on by the prosecution and the defense were completed, the defendants were either conclusively excluded as the source or else the results were inconclusive. That, under the Arkansas DNA statutes, entitles the defendant to relief.

 

[Miranda!]

As I mentioned previously, I've never had much interest in procedural matters, so I'm glad you're around and willing to help me sort through that.

Kyle I mean this in the kindest possible way. How on earth can you reach a conclusion, as solid as yours appears to be, without going through all the potential evidence in a way that is ordered, structured and follows some sort of 'procedure', even if it is unique to you?

Taking a stance on the guilt or innocence of the three is, de facto, taking a stance on the the legal process in the courts of Arkansas.

You have been allowed, to a degree, to get away with using evidence which was inadmissable at trial, to back your arguments up. If the judicial processes are dismissed as not of interest then the only thing left is that you have 100% confidence in both the law enforcement agencies and the courts ALWAYS getting things right. It follows from that that you really have no interest in any of the 'debate' being had here, and on other forums. That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is taking a path very close to anarchy if the wrong people manage to get elected into positons of power and exert that control they have in such a way as to only be to their advantage. That is but a step away from vigilantiism and the reign of the 'strongest' bully - or the best armed one. That is scary.

On the matter of the DNA all it did prove was that were the three involved they managed to do it all without leaving a trace of forensic evidence and not that they did not commit the crime. However, most would agree that teenagers in general and boys in particular are not the tidiest of humans and most mothers have had horrendous arguments in efforts to get their sons to clean or tidy their rooms!

That three, maybe slightly drunken, teens should have managed such a monumental task of effectively forensically 'sterilising' either a crime scene or a dump site is quite mind boggling! Not a hair, a skin flake or a speck of their blood.

Balanced against that, there was a hair found in the ligature binding a victim, not his son, that could only have belonged to either Hobbs or someone beonging to the maternal side of his family - a brother, sister or uncle or aunt, by blood, of his maternal line. Furthermore, another hair was identified as belonging to the maternal line of the friend who was helping him search for Stevie but did not, according to statements given to date, go to the recovery site.

Furthermore, if Hobbs were to have been telling the truth all along then how come he did not witness the 'three' at the scene? Hobbs is the best alibi that Echols et al have that they were not in those woods at the critical time.

But forget about reading the different speculative arguments presented by either supporters or nons. You need to take a leaf from Reedus' book and read all the trial transcripts and subsequent paper work and resulting appeals. I am assuming here (never wise) that you have indeed already read all the paper work etc that the police gathered prior to the trials.

Otherwise any belief you express is based entirely on how you 'feel' at gut level as to their guilt based on what you have gleaned to date. Luckily in the western world, 'hoops' have to be jumped through in a fairly structured way in an effort to remove any chances of 'gut' feeling findings as fas as is possible. This case has, over the years, taught me a great deal about the American legal system as wll as giving me even more insight into our own. At times it has been a very steep learning curve, and that upward curve is not over yet!!

It is worth pointing out here that Callahan's was started by a Scandinavian who was convinced of the guilt of the three. However, as both supporters and nons alike. visited the wmpd evidence room and took copies or jpegs of all they could for Cally's, Christian began to change his mind. There came a point as he was dilligently assembling one of the largest on line resources dedicated to just one case, he came to the realisation that things were not as clear cut as he had at first thought. Reasonable doubt reared its head and eventally he morphed into a supporter! Despite this sea change, he continued to up load documents as well as still photos, audio and visual files, pertaining to the case. Without this resource, serious discussion about the case would be far, far harder!

 

[kyleb]

The hearing wasn't granted because of the Hobbs hair, KyleB. It was granted because when the DNA tests which were mutually agreed on by the prosecution and the defense were completed, the defendants were either conclusively excluded as the source or else the results were inconclusive. That, under the Arkansas DNA statutes, entitles the defendant to relief.

Would you please quote the statute you are alluding to here?

How on earth can you reach a conclusion, as solid as yours appears to be, without going through all the potential evidence in a way that is ordered, structured and follows some sort of 'procedure', even if it is unique to you?

How on earth can you not realize that by "procedural matters" I'm talking about matters regarding procedural law, particularly given the fact that I used such terminology in the reference to of my unfamiliarity with the Pleadings and Court Opinions section of Callahan? I apologize for my inability to come up with a nicer way to ask how you manged to so wildly misinterpret what I said, but I'm left very curious to know: do you not have any respect for the concept of context?