New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[Compassionate Reader]

Just a word about the documents re: Echols. As I believe was previously stated, they were introduced by the defense during the penalty phase of the proceedings. They were being introduced to mitigate the punishment. Since the judge imposed the Death Penalty, IMO, those documents didn't "prove" that Damien was crazy at the time of the murders or that his mental condition caused him to murder the boys. However, those who believe that Damien, Jason and Jessie are guilty continually trot out these documents, referred to as Exhibit 500, in an attempt to "prove" just what the judge refused to accept - that Damien's mental condition was a contributing factor to his crime.

Also, again as was previously stated, Damien's mental condition should not be sufficient to "prove" that he committed the murders. Even if all of the statements, etc. in Exhibit 500 are 100% true (which I have reason to doubt), they in no way are proof of Damien's involvement in these murders. To prove involvement, evidence other than a mental condition should be provided. As I'm sure any attorney can tell you, mental instability can be a contributing factor or can sometimes be an "excuse" for a crime, but it is not irrefutable evidence that the mentally unstable person committed the crime.

 

[kyleb]

Of course Exhibit 500 doesn't prove Echols committed murder. However, it disproves Echols' oft-repeated claim that such suspicion was based on little more than his "taste in clothes, music, etc". To the contrary proves prove Echols was a violent psychopath around the time of the murders, which in turn gave police good reason to consider him a suspect, as WM3 Truth explains in considerable detail.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It didn't take me long to figure out that this is one of those cases that does cause people to step back from time to time. :floorlaugh: I don't know if anyone involved in LE will have the guts to truly touch this case again.

After having read through I think just about everything (probably some later expert reports that I haven't fully read), and having watched the documentaries, there are lots of things that raises question marks or concerns for me, but the thing that really disturbs me the most is the Judge. Judges are human. They bring with them the influences of their lifetime. As a result, some are going to tilt one way while others tilt the opposite. It's impossible to avoid no matter how hard you attempt to be objective. I understand that and expect that.

Outside of some of the rulings though, there were 2 things that truly bothered me. First, I have never seen a Judge allow a documentary to be filmed during the course of a trial(ironically that is also what likely led to the WM3 eventually being released too). Everyone was involved in that from LE, to DA, to defense attorneys, but the Judge had the power and authority to control that.

Second, is his reactions after the fact. His statements go beyond being an impartial arbiter of the law. In fact, he nearly pleads the WM3's guilt more than the DA in the follow up interviews. It's one thing to state you think the verdicts and your rulings were supported by the evidence, but he goes beyond that (Kyle, you can catch those quotes in the documentaries. I don't have the time or the inclination to go paste them here now).

BBM. Agree completely. I feel like this JUDGE wanted them convicted from the start. It was a weird time in America then. The Satanic cult stories were crazy and used a lot. It was used to incite fear and disgust in people. It was easy to believe of this goth teen, but in reality this entire prosecution was a dog and pony show. It was meant to make it impossible for the jury to see the real facts. There was so much that never should have been allowed in, and it was tarnished from the beginning.

Whenever a prosecutor has to use fear tactics to make his case, It is not a good one.

I don't think this Judge wanted Justice. I think he wanted them put away from the start.

 

[terekaugelt]

Sure, I'm still trying to figure out why Misskelley didn't accomplish anything along those lines through Stidham. Given the documentation I've read, Misskelley maintained his guilt to Stidham for some two to six months before changing his story, and I've yet to see a reasonable explanation for how Stidham came to believe Misskelley was innocent within that time frame. My best guess is that Stidham was simply blinded by the glory which would come from getting an innocent man free from high profile murder charges, and hence mislead himself into believing that's what he was doing.

Perhaps the following quote might help you out? If it does not, nothing ever will. http://www.stidhamlawfirm.com/grisham.html

It's quite long but the essence is there, I can only add that Stidham worked pro bono for a long time not only for Jessie but for the others (helping out with appeals, for instance). And this at a time when the case was not famous. (He even jokes bitterly at the experts who kicked him out of the door at that time and were later ready to do the same work pro bono). Stidham did his work for years for justices's sake, and pro bono, until he got his position as a judge and could only help unofficially.

And, can I say this politely: this was not a famous case at the time. Not by a long shot. The celebrities were not involved. "Paradise Lost" was still three years in the making. These three were totally condemned in the public opinion. The MOST advantageous course for Sidham to take was spend minimal amounts of time or energy on the case. The usual pay for public defenders was 100 dollars per hour, Stidham got 19 dollars per hour, after a long time of haggling with the judge who did not like his opinion..

About money and pro bono, more about the next post. Just a foretaste: the state has little money in comparison to celebrities. But when the case first came to court, the state had all the money and the defence had almost nothing. (See earlier the experts). So was that a fair balance?

For others, just google Dan Stidham and West Memphis Three and you will find a wealth of interesting material. His own homepage is really interesting.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I have often said that Dan Stidham is one of the true heroes in this case.

 

[reedus23]

I have often said that Dan Stidham is one of the true heroes in this case.

Regardless of how one thinks he performed at trial, the manner in which he continued to take on a cause that he clearly believed in is truly admirable despite the little to no pay at the time.

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps the following quote might help you out? If it does not, nothing ever will. http://www.stidhamlawfirm.com/grisham.html

Well, it certainly helps support my point that this was a high-profile case, as the article itself identifies it as such, and substantiates that when nothing that Stidham first heard of the murders from CNN, and also that "Peter Jennings, 20/20, Dateline, Time, The New York Times, and on and on" called him shortly after being appointed to the case. Beyond that, the explanation for how he came to believe the three are innocent is rather vague and muddled, which is of course how people come to mislead themselves in taking positions of faith which stand in contradiction to reality.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There's a fine distinction, IMO, between "high profile" and "famous" cases. The WM3 case was high profile from the beginning, I agree. It was sensationalistic and involved the murders of three children. That's why HBO became interested. And, that's why the trials were held in remote locations.

However, celebrities didn't become involved for some years - not until well after the high profile case had been adjudicated. So, when the article was written and published, this case was not "famous" (with celebrities involved) and Judge Stidham was acting on his own convictions. After all, he has spoken directly with Jessie. Have you?

Judge Stidham is convinced of the innocence of Jessie and the others because he has something most of us on this board lack - firsthand experience with the case. It all comes down to credibility, IMO. Is Judge Stidham credible? Or, do you think that Ellington and the other representatives of the State of Arkansas are credible?

Which "side" is more credible? That's often what a jury is asked to determine. That's why "expert" witnesses are called. And, that's why it was such a miscarriage of justice when Judge Burnett only allowed full testimony for "experts" on the prosecution side while squelching, at least in part, "expert" testimony that would have helped the defense.

 

[ceecee30]

Which "side" is more credible? That's often what a jury is asked to determine. That's why "expert" witnesses are called. And, that's why it was such a miscarriage of justice when Judge Burnett only allowed full testimony for "experts" on the prosecution side while squelching, at least in part, "expert" testimony that would have helped the defense.

Forgive me, I don't understand the us legal system all that well..

But wouldn't your above quote mean the WM3 weren't even given a fair trial to begin with??

 

[kyleb]

There's a fine distinction, IMO, between "high profile" and "famous" cases.

Sure, but my point is that the case was high-profile from the start, Terekaugelt went off on the famous tangent on her own.

After all, he has spoken directly with Jessie. Have you?

No, but I've read the transcripts of Misskelley's multiple confessions to Stidham along with Misskelley's other confessions both prior and after, and listened to all the publicly available recordings of them. What I've yet to find is a reasonable explanation of how Stidham managed to go from discussing a guilty plea deal rather than an alibi while Misskelley confessed in detail to involvement in the murders on 8/19/93 to believing the three are innocent. The article Terekaugelt linked has which Stidham proclaiming Misskelley's innocence to his wife the previous month doesn't rightly come anywhere close to explaining that. So again, I'm left with to suspect Stidham was merely blinded by the glory which would come from getting an innocent man free from high profile murder charges, and somewhere along the line mislead himself into believing that's what he was doing. He apparently doesn't rightly even remember how it happened, seeing as how his story reported by the Arkansas Times is so wildly inconsistent with his own documentation.

It all comes down to credibility, IMO.

Witness statements are matters of credibility to the extent that they aren't corroborated by evidence, but again evidence exists regardless of who presents it, or who chooses to ignore it for that matter.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Forgive me, I don't understand the us legal system all that well..

But wouldn't your above quote mean the WM3 weren't even given a fair trial to begin with??

The short answer is, "YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The original police investigation was inept at best. There was a rush to find the murderers, and that rush led to sloppy police work and what has been called "Damien Echols tunnel vision." Damien's name was given to the wmpd investigators by Steve Jones and/or Jerry Driver, juvenile probation officers who had targeted Damien because they thought he was the leader of a Satanic cult. So, they fed his name to the investigators.

A little background information: At the time here in the US, "Satanic panic" was at its height. Many crimes were being blamed on heavy metal music, which was said to lead teens to dark thoughts and even suicide and murder. The authorities even tried to sue rock bands (Judas Priest comes to mind) when a teen committed suicide.

It is important to note that not one murder in the US has ever been proven to have been a ritualistic Satanic killing. However, that was the prevalent "boogeyman" of the time. When you add in the low education level in West Memphis, Arkansas, and their propensity to accept whatever the police tell them to be true, you get the miscarriage of justice known as the West Memphis Three case.

Before someone brings up Ricky Kasso, I will! In this infamous murder, Kasso claimed, "The devil made me do it" and supposedly tried to force his victim into saying he loved Satan before he killed him. In reality, it was about retribution for a theft and was in no way a ritualistic killing. Again, this crime occurred during the "Satanic panic" in the US and was widely reported at the time (July, 1984). Although there have been Satanic ritualistic killings in other places, we have not had any here in the US!

So, in order to solve the case, the police arrested, tried and convicted three teenagers who had the audacity to listed to heavy metal music and wear black clothing. In other words, they didn't conform to the society in which they lived. This is true of many teenagers, but most of them don't end up falsely accused of murder!

Also contributing to the miscarriage of justice was jury misconduct. The foreman of the Echols/Baldwin jury told an attorney (who submitted an affidavit under seal) that he was determined to see the two convicted. Since he feared that the jury was leaning toward acquittal, he took it upon himself to introduce Jessie's "confession" into deliberations. Since Jessie had refused to testify against Damien and Jason, the "confession" was inadmissible because Jessie couldn't be cross-examined by the defense. So, that trial should have been declared a mistrial. However, the attorney to whom the foreman spoke was unsure if the statement was given under attorney/client privilege. So, the affidavit was under seal and didn't become public knowledge until much later. For anyone who hasn't read it, here is the link (or url).

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/l_warford_affidavit.html

Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence that supports judicial misconduct during the Misskelley trial. Supposedly, Burnett, in an aside through the door to the jury room, made a comment that was seen by some as indicative to the jury that Misskelley was guilty - something about going on and having supper because they would have to come back for the penalty phase afterwards. So, yes, the original trials were unfair - on so many levels that I can't even begin to enumerate them!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sure, but my point is that the case was high-profile from the start, Terekaugelt went off on the famous tangent on her own.

The way I read things was that there were no celebrities involved until after the first documentary came out in 1996. Judge Stidham was not receiving any help - financially or other wise. IMO, the other attorneys believed the three were guilty. IIRC, Val Price said as much. So, Stidham was really the only one on their side, so to speak. I believe that was the point being made.

No, but I've read the transcripts of Misskelley's multiple confessions to Stidham along with Misskelley's other confessions both prior and after, and listened to all the publicly available recordings of them. What I've yet to find is a reasonable explanation of how Stidham managed to go from discussing a guilty plea deal rather than an alibi while Misskelley confessed in detail to involvement in the murders on 8/19/93 to believing the three are innocent. The article Terekaugelt linked has which Stidham proclaiming Misskelley's innocence to his wife the previous month doesn't rightly come anywhere close to explaining that. So again, I'm left with to suspect Stidham was merely blinded by the glory which would come from getting an innocent man free from high profile murder charges, and somewhere along the line mislead himself into believing that's what he was doing. He apparently doesn't rightly even remember how it happened, seeing as how his story reported by the Arkansas Times is so wildly inconsistent with his own documentation.

Simply put, and you may not believe this, but I've worked with students with the same IQ range as Jessie, and they often say whatever they believe the questioner wants to hear. My take on this is that, when Stidham talked with Jessie, Sr., Jessie, Sr. was able to convince him that Jessie, Jr. didn't always tell the truth. Later, in the post-conviction statements, Jessie's stories were not coherent. (IMO, this one isn't, either.) I really think that Jessie's naivete convinced Stidham of his innocence. I believe Stidham saw that naivete in unrecorded interviews and discussions as part of the trial preparation process. As to why Stidham didn't insist on a guilty plea, obviously sometime between the interview you linked and the trial, Stidham found out the truth - that Jessie was innocent. So, he did his best to prove that to the jury. The fact that the jury didn't believe him only demonstrates why we need an appeals process.

Witness statements are matters of credibility to the extent that they aren't corroborated by evidence, but again evidence exists regardless of who presents it, or who chooses to ignore it for that matter.

Remember evidence is only believed by a jury if they consider the source to be credible. That's really what happens in a trial. Both sides present their evidence, and then the jury deliberates to determine which evidence they believe to be true. As I've said before, the jury in a trial can be wrong, as they were here. However, with persistence, the truth will come out and justice will be served.

 

[reedus23]

Which "side" is more credible? That's often what a jury is asked to determine. That's why "expert" witnesses are called. And, that's why it was such a miscarriage of justice when Judge Burnett only allowed full testimony for "experts" on the prosecution side while squelching, at least in part, "expert" testimony that would have helped the defense.

Snipped and bolded by me. I would say it's safe to say he limited the defense experts to a large extent, not just in part. In fact, as I was reading just the testimony (not commentary or opinion), my own personal opinion was that the Judge so limited Ofshe for example, that I wonder if the defense would have even called him at all if they knew how much the judge was going to limit his testimony. The limitations placed on his testimony practically neutered his opinions and, while I thought he was the most impressive witness in that trial, he probably ended up providing the least in the form of testimony because he was so limited. Just my opinions of course.

 

[reedus23]

Simply put, and you may not believe this, but I've worked with students with the same IQ range as Jessie, and they often say whatever they believe the questioner wants to hear.

You know what's ironic about it all, is when I watched the hearing when the Alford Pleas were accepted, and it came time for Jessie to enter his plea, he stumbled, someone pointed to what he needed to say and he said it. I immediately had visions of the confession and how easy it would have been to get him to say whatever you wanted him to say. The situations were obviously different, but even after all these years, I think Jessie would still be easily influenced, especially by people trained to influence people.

As I've said before, the jury in a trial can be wrong, as they were here. However, with persistence, the truth will come out and justice will be served.

As a quick aside to your point and to show how arbitrary juries can be at times, I know of a burglary case where there was a car pursuit and the police chased the defendant all the way to his home of all places. The defendant drove all the way into his driveway with the police right behind him the whole time. Was as guilty as can be. In talking to jurors after they acquitted him, the lawyers learned that their decision wasn't based on any of the evidence or issues raised at trial. Somehow, the fact that the police never felt the hood of the car to see if it was still warm caused the jurors to disbelieve everything else presented. Mind you, it was all caught on a dash cam and there was no doubt it was the defendant's car so who would have thought to put on evidence that the hood was still warm.

Of course there are also the nightmare stories of jurors being influenced by the color of a tie or nail polish, but thankfully, those are the exception to the rule, but they do happen.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

You know what's ironic about it all, is when I watched the hearing when the Alford Pleas were accepted, and it came time for Jessie to enter his plea, he stumbled, someone pointed to what he needed to say and he said it. I immediately had visions of the confession and how easy it would have been to get him to say whatever you wanted him to say. The situations were obviously different, but even after all these years, I think Jessie would still be easily influenced, especially by people trained to influence people.

(snipped by me)

Is it true that Jessie was alone with detectives for two hours, without parents or a lawyer present, and yet only 45 minutes of that was taped? Because just as Jessie needed coaching on what to say when entering his plea, it's not hard for me to believe that 75 minutes alone with detectives was plenty of time for them to pressure and coach what they wanted to hear... from someone with the capacity of a child.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

(snipped by me)

Is it true that Jessie was alone with detectives for two hours, without parents or a lawyer present, and yet only 45 minutes of that was taped? Because just as Jessie needed coaching on what to say when entering his plea, it's not hard for me to believe that 75 minutes alone with detectives was plenty of time for them to pressure and coach what they wanted to hear... from someone with the capacity of a child.

That does work, until you read all his other confessions .. even after conviction

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Here is a doc with Jessie's 4 confessions for comparison .. downloadable with links to original interviews ..

 

[Deleted member 96356]

Maybe telling the truth didn't work out so well for him when he was with the detectives, so he learned what the law wanted to hear. In the way a scared child learns to say the "right" thing, even if it's a lie.

That gap in time with the detectives really bothers me. (And didn't he get details wrong in that confession?) If only the police had done a proper job from the get-go. Starting with the crime scene. Never mind the court circus.

I do believe there was more than one person involved. Beating, tying and killing three boys all at once... you'd need more than two hands for all that.

ETA: I just saw your link to the confessions comparison - thanks! I'll read it.

 

[ArianeEmory]

(snipped by me)

Is it true that Jessie was alone with detectives for two hours, without parents or a lawyer present, and yet only 45 minutes of that was taped? Because just as Jessie needed coaching on what to say when entering his plea, it's not hard for me to believe that 75 minutes alone with detectives was plenty of time for them to pressure and coach what they wanted to hear... from someone with the capacity of a child.

I am very new to this case, but according to Wikipedia, it was 12 hours. (Based on how divisive a case this is I suspect people are going to say the Wikipedia article is not credible, but I just happened to read that piece of info so I'm passing it along.)

 

[Cappuccino]

(snipped by me)

Is it true that Jessie was alone with detectives for two hours, without parents or a lawyer present, and yet only 45 minutes of that was taped? Because just as Jessie needed coaching on what to say when entering his plea, it's not hard for me to believe that 75 minutes alone with detectives was plenty of time for them to pressure and coach what they wanted to hear... from someone with the capacity of a child.

Jessie was alone with detectives, without parents or a lawyer present, for 4 hours 45 minutes before he made his first confession. However, that confession wasn't enough for an arrest warrant because he said the crime had happened in the morning, which the police knew to be inaccurate. So they went back to him later in the afternoon to get a "clarification" statement, during which they can be blatantly heard leading Jessie to bring the time later and later until they get him to say a time after the boys were last seen alive. At that stage they rang Judge Pal Rainey at home and got him to issue an arrest warrant.

All in all, it was between 11-12 hours between Jessie going to the police station with Mike Allen, and an arrest warrant being issued. That's where the 12 hour thing quoted by ArianeEmory comes from. However, it was just short of 5 hours before he confessed.