Recent Developments

[cami]

Echols brief is great. So honest, so open, so obvious..

The States brief = empty

Id like to ask all the non supporters... why would 3 "guilty' men push so hard for every piece of evidence to be tested... i know if i were guilty of something i would totally poo myself if they wanted to do testing... Honestly, the 3 can't be any more open honest and willing... my heart just breaks not only for the victims but for the 3 guys thrown into this horrible mess for simply being "easy targets".....

Because they are hoping for artifact dna that points to someone else. They are not going to admit guilt now when they have so many supporters. If these dna tests don't clear them completely, they can cry the tests were contaminated.

Why does Darlie Routier want evidence tested when the evidence of her guilt is overwhelming? Why did Jeff MacDonald? After 8 years of waiting, the dna tests only reaffirmed his guilt.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

When will we get to see both sides proof of evidence? I want to know what they defense has and what the state has.

So they will get new trials if the hearings go well? or will they be released?

I'm afraid that we won't see the evidence until after it's presented at the hearing. Since the hearing is before just a Judge and not a jury, I'm not even sure that it will be open to the public. I don't think that Judge Laser will allow cameras in the courtroom.

The way I understand it, three things can happen.

1. Judge Laser rules that there is not sufficient evidence for a new trial, and they remain in prison. Damien's appeals will go to the Federal level while Jessie and Jason continue appeals on the State level.

2. Judge Laser rules that a new trial is indicated. The original verdicts will be vacated and:

a) the State decides to retry in which case the guys remain incarcerated while a trial date is established, etc - back to square one with a trial, or:

b) the State decides not to retry in which case the guys will be released.

However, the last option is double-edged. First, the State can drop all charges. The guys are off the hook, so to speak. However, the problem with this option is that there will still be people that believe the guys to be guilty. It all depends on why the State says there will not be a new trial. They could say that too much time has passed and we don't think we can make a case (suspicion will still be rampant) or in light of the new evidence, we feel that the original verdicts were wrong, and we don't want to spend the taxpayers' money trying innocent men (a much better scenario).

Second, the State can leave the charges open, meaning that they want time to gather more evidence before proceeding to trial. I'm less clear here, but I think the guys will be freed (since the original convictions will be vacated), but they will remain "persons of interest" unless (or until) someone else is convicted of the crime. This is the worst possible outcome IMO since it will leave the guys in limbo for, possibly, the rest of their lives. Please, any attorney here (or anyone with more legal knowledge than I have) correct this if I'm wrong.

I realize that, even if there is a trial and a not guilty verdict, some people will continue to suspect the guys. I guess that's life. Personally, I'd prefer a new trial and a not guilty verdict. However, I want the guys free; so, I'd settle for no trial. I just hope and pray that, if there's no trial, the State drops the charges.

 

[sleuthin-suz]

Because they are hoping for artifact dna that points to someone else. They are not going to admit guilt now when they have so many supporters. If these dna tests don't clear them completely, they can cry the tests were contaminated.

Why does Darlie Routier want evidence tested when the evidence of her guilt is overwhelming? Why did Jeff MacDonald? After 8 years of waiting, the dna tests only reaffirmed his guilt.

in the words of Al...... "I don't think so, Tim".

the guys are innocent simple as that it can not be more clear or obvious. If non supporters are willing to lock 3 men away, and have one executed with NO true evidence, NOTHING, ZILCH... then they are pretty much murderers themselves.

How about looking at the whole picture rather then looking for any possible pathetic way to try make them look guilty.. when they went on trial all those years ago thats exactly what they did... innocent til proven guilty.. my *advertiser censored*.... it was a case of -
'lets manipulate this enough to suck the jury and community in to believeing it couldnt have been anyone else becasue we're too lazy to actually do our jobs and investigate this horrendous murder, oh and lets do it fast so we can get our promotions"!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

To me, it's simple: the State should be after justice, not winning. The problem, from the beginning, IMO is that the people on the State's "side" seemed to be seeking political advancement instead of justice. That's just wrong. The point of any trial should be to find the truth. To refuse testing of what could be exculpatory or inculpatory evidence just reeks of injustice. I'm with Damien, "Test everything!"

cami, IMO Routier was too ignorant to know better and McDonald was so arrogant as to believe that he had left no evidence. Now, you may say that the arrogance could apply here as well. We'll never know unless the testing is done, will we?

October is still a long way off, but I'm anxiously waiting for the hearing to begin. I'm afraid that it won't be a short one, primarily because the State wants to do like they did in the Rule 37 hearings - drag things out so the picture presented is disjointed. It's just one more example, to me, of the fact that they know they have no case, but they continue to delay, hoping that the delay in and of itself will help them. I don't understand that logic, but that appears to be how they think.

Bottom line, I'm anxious for the hearing to begin so that justice can be done for those three little boys found dead in that ditch so long ago. It's high time.

 

[sleuthin-suz]

to me, it's simple: The state should be after justice, not winning. The problem, from the beginning, imo is that the people on the state's "side" seemed to be seeking political advancement instead of justice. That's just wrong. The point of any trial should be to find the truth. To refuse testing of what could be exculpatory or inculpatory evidence just reeks of injustice. I'm with damien, "test everything!"

cami, imo routier was too ignorant to know better and mcdonald was so arrogant as to believe that he had left no evidence. Now, you may say that the arrogance could apply here as well. We'll never know unless the testing is done, will we?

October is still a long way off, but i'm anxiously waiting for the hearing to begin. I'm afraid that it won't be a short one, primarily because the state wants to do like they did in the rule 37 hearings - drag things out so the picture presented is disjointed. It's just one more example, to me, of the fact that they know they have no case, but they continue to delay, hoping that the delay in and of itself will help them. I don't understand that logic, but that appears to be how they think.

Bottom line, i'm anxious for the hearing to begin so that justice can be done for those three little boys found dead in that ditch so long ago. It's high time.

amen!

 

[Nova]

Just like a bunch of sheep. Baaa, Baaa it's John Mark Byers. Now baa, baaa it's Terry Hobbs.

Well, this particular sheep never accused JMB of the crime, though if you're honest, you'll admit he did his best to make himself look suspicious.

And this particular sheep has never accused TH. But with the exception of statements coerced from a mentally impaired young man under pressure, it's a fact there is more evidence implicating Hobbs than any of the WM3.

 

[Nova]

I'm afraid that we won't see the evidence until after it's presented at the hearing. Since the hearing is before just a Judge and not a jury, I'm not even sure that it will be open to the public. I don't think that Judge Laser will allow cameras in the courtroom.

The way I understand it, three things can happen.

1. Judge Laser rules that there is not sufficient evidence for a new trial, and they remain in prison. Damien's appeals will go to the Federal level while Jessie and Jason continue appeals on the State level.

2. Judge Laser rules that a new trial is indicated. The original verdicts will be vacated and:

a) the State decides to retry in which case the guys remain incarcerated while a trial date is established, etc - back to square one with a trial, or:

b) the State decides not to retry in which case the guys will be released.

However, the last option is double-edged. First, the State can drop all charges. The guys are off the hook, so to speak. However, the problem with this option is that there will still be people that believe the guys to be guilty. It all depends on why the State says there will not be a new trial. They could say that too much time has passed and we don't think we can make a case (suspicion will still be rampant) or in light of the new evidence, we feel that the original verdicts were wrong, and we don't want to spend the taxpayers' money trying innocent men (a much better scenario).

Second, the State can leave the charges open, meaning that they want time to gather more evidence before proceeding to trial. I'm less clear here, but I think the guys will be freed (since the original convictions will be vacated), but they will remain "persons of interest" unless (or until) someone else is convicted of the crime. This is the worst possible outcome IMO since it will leave the guys in limbo for, possibly, the rest of their lives. Please, any attorney here (or anyone with more legal knowledge than I have) correct this if I'm wrong.

I realize that, even if there is a trial and a not guilty verdict, some people will continue to suspect the guys. I guess that's life. Personally, I'd prefer a new trial and a not guilty verdict. However, I want the guys free; so, I'd settle for no trial. I just hope and pray that, if there's no trial, the State drops the charges.

I'm not a lawyer, CR, but I think that's a pretty good summary.

I don't think the prosecutor will ever admit the WM3 are innocent. So I suspect the best the defendants can hope for is that the appellate court will order a new trial and the prosecutor will announce "too much time has passed" (as if the passage of time were the fault of the defendants rather than the State's stalling).

 

[Fishmonger Dave]

If they want every thing to be tested that must include the T-shirt and Pendant.

And, ummm, for the sake of argument -- if we show that the defense wants these tested (along with everything else) and that the State is fighting that request, you become a supporter, right?

Cuz... it ain't for the sake of argument. The fact is that the defense is asking for everything to be tested. The State is fighting that request. Read it yourself: http://www.dpdlaw.com/statebrief.pdf

No with any personal integrity can any longer say "I think they're guilty." Not when the State is looking to hide and fight testing and the defense is yelling for it.

 

[sleuthin-suz]

And, ummm, for the sake of argument -- if we show that the defense wants these tested (along with everything else) and that the State is fighting that request, you become a supporter, right?

Cuz... it ain't for the sake of argument. The fact is that the defense is asking for everything to be tested. The State is fighting that request. Read it yourself: http://www.dpdlaw.com/statebrief.pdf

No with any personal integrity can any longer say "I think they're guilty." Not when the State is looking to hide and fight testing and the defense is yelling for it.

damn straight!!!

its like banging your head against a brick wall with these non supporters...

 

[iluvmua]

And, ummm, for the sake of argument -- if we show that the defense wants these tested (along with everything else) and that the State is fighting that request, you become a supporter, right?

Cuz... it ain't for the sake of argument. The fact is that the defense is asking for everything to be tested. The State is fighting that request. Read it yourself: http://www.dpdlaw.com/statebrief.pdf

No with any personal integrity can any longer say "I think they're guilty." Not when the State is looking to hide and fight testing and the defense is yelling for it.

not so fast, IMO I still believe them to be guilty, But that could change once I see all the evidence that both sides have.


The state does not need anything because the Defense will have to fight to prove actual innocence.

This all lies with the Defense.

 

[iluvmua]

Well, this particular sheep never accused JMB of the crime, though if you're honest, you'll admit he did his best to make himself look suspicious.

And this particular sheep has never accused TH. But with the exception of statements coerced from a mentally impaired young man under pressure, it's a fact there is more evidence implicating Hobbs than any of the WM3.

Like What? The Hair is most likely a transfer hair. In order for me and i'm sure many others to believe Hobbs is guilty. I will need SOLID proof that he did it.

What would Hobbs motive be to kill not only his step son, but his two friends as well?

Jessie Misskelley's 2nd Confession is pretty damning. There is no way he could have dreamed/though this up unless he was there.

His Lawyers don't want him to give his statement about what happened. He gives it willingly without getting favors in return.

He even admits he lied to police to throw them off track.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Like What? The Hair is most likely a transfer hair. In order for me and i'm sure many others to believe Hobbs is guilty. I will need SOLID proof that he did it.

What about the Jacoby hair? That can't be considered innocent transfer unless you think Jacoby was lying when he stated that he never went into the woods as far as the discovery ditch. What about the fact that Jacoby states in his deposition in the Pasdar case that there were times that Hobbs stated that he was with Jacoby but Jacoby maintains that Hobbs wasn't there, thereby providing an opportunity for TH to commit the crimes? What about the statement of Mildred French who testified that Hobbs had been violent and abusive to his first wife and child and that when she went to authorities about it, he came after her? There's more than just his hair at the discovery site to link him to this crime.

What would Hobbs motive be to kill not only his step son, but his two friends as well?

IMO, he killed his step son accidentally when trying to discipline him. The other boys were witnesses. He panicked and killed them, too.

Jessie Misskelley's 2nd Confession is pretty damning. There is no way he could have dreamed/though this up unless he was there.

Which statement do you consider his "2nd Confession?" Is it the "corrected" statement taken at the police department on the day he was arrested or the statement that he made in the police car on the way to prison?

If you are referring to the "corrected" statement, IMO, much of what he said in that statement was coerced by leading questions from the police, so, of course more of this statement would agree with the evidence, as the police believed it, from the crime.

If you are referring to the first post conviction statement, IMO, his mental handicap was in evidence here as this was an attempt (in typical fashion for one with his IQ) to "get out of" the situation in which he found himself. And, he had just finished his trial where he heard all the information of the case, presented by both the State and the defense. So he had some additional information to use in this statement. However, even with the trial information, not everything in that statement agrees with the evidence as we see it today.

His Lawyers don't want him to give his statement about what happened. He gives it willingly without getting favors in return.

That's the second post conviction statement. Again, this was only about a month after his conviction. He has stated (unfortunately not on the record IIRC) that the police came to the prison, against his lawyers' wishes, to try to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. Even though they were instructed not to question him without his lawyers, the prosecution continued to do so, even moving him to another location in an attempt IMO to keep their actions a secret.

When Jessie's lawyers find out and show up, of course they advise him not to testify. IMO, at this point, Jessie is confused and doesn't know who to believe. All he knows is that listening to his lawyers (not testifying at his trial) got him into prison, so he's ready to try again to make a statement that might get him out of prison. That's the way he's thinking IMO, and I'm sure that much of the information in this final statement was fed to him by the prosecution. Again, even this statement is not totally accurate, even after his trial and probable coaching from the prosecution.

He even admits he lied to police to throw them off track.

That's his lame attempt to explain why his initial statement didn't agree with the evidence presented at his trial IMO. I'm confident that many of these issues will be made clearer at the hearing. Come on, October!

 

[Nova]

Like What? The Hair is most likely a transfer hair. In order for me and i'm sure many others to believe Hobbs is guilty. I will need SOLID proof that he did it.

What would Hobbs motive be to kill not only his step son, but his two friends as well?

Jessie Misskelley's 2nd Confession is pretty damning. There is no way he could have dreamed/though this up unless he was there.

His Lawyers don't want him to give his statement about what happened. He gives it willingly without getting favors in return.

He even admits he lied to police to throw them off track.

I agree with you that a single hair from a family member is not enough to even arrest TH, much less convict him.

What I said, however, is that that single hair is still one hair more than the forensic evidence they have against the WM3.

How do you know what info JM got from his interrogators? What transcript are you reading?

I don't have a site handy, but townspeople have said more than once that the into supposedly "withheld" by police was in fact all over town because police personnel were blabbing. The best indication of that is JM confessing to details (the sodomizing of the children) that conform to what the police believed at the time, but later proved untrue.

Whether JM got the info from his interrogators (most likely) or from town gossip (quite possible, though i have my doubts as to how much gossip JM could have retained), he had ample sources and still couldn't get his "confessions" right.

 

[iluvmua]

I agree with you that a single hair from a family member is not enough to even arrest TH, much less convict him.

What I said, however, is that that single hair is still one hair more than the forensic evidence they have against the WM3.

How do you know what info JM got from his interrogators? What transcript are you reading?

I don't have a site handy, but townspeople have said more than once that the into supposedly "withheld" by police was in fact all over town because police personnel were blabbing. The best indication of that is JM confessing to details (the sodomizing of the children) that conform to what the police believed at the time, but later proved untrue.

Whether JM got the info from his interrogators (most likely) or from town gossip (quite possible, though i have my doubts as to how much gossip JM could have retained), he had ample sources and still couldn't get his "confessions" right.

His second confession from Callahan's.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

His second confession from Callahan's.

And, as I pointed out in your thread of the same name, that is still full of inaccuracies. The problem was that all of JM's statements were coached, at least in part, except the one in the police car on the way to prison. None of his statements are more truthful than inaccurate. Therefore, they simply cannot be believed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Today a press release was issued regarding the hearing. Here's a link:

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/03/17/hearing-set-in-west-memphis-three-case

ETA: Here's a link to the actual order: http://wm3org.typepad.com/files/laserorder314dl.pdf

 

[ziggy]

Thanks for the update. You know, sitting in civil procedure class last night and discussing jury misconduct (in both evidence and civil procedure) I realized that evidence of the misconduct (this is in Federal Court, but state courts adopt many of the same rules) must come from some other source rather than from the jurors themselves. Affidavits from the jurors will not be heard to determine whether there was juror misconduct. So, in this case the affidavit from the attorney is HUGE. I simply can't see the Court denying a new trial based on this information along with the new DNA evidence. These are two classic reasons why a high court would vacate a verdict and order a new trial. I hope that happens here - I think it is the only just way to handle it.

The Court will not be saying they are not guilty, they will just get a do-over because of the problems with the first trials. All of the evidence from the first trial will still be in existence and if it's as strong as those who are convinced they are guilty think it is, then logically it should hold up to another jury. I think there is fear about that. Why should there be fear? The truth has no agenda.

 

[ziggy]

Just a quick question for those in the know - were there Daubert motions in the first trial of Damien and Jason as to challenge the expert status of Griffis? I honestly don't know how he could be considered an expert in the field, his qualifications are scant and sketchy.

Can his status as an expert be challenged again now? Or is his testimony not part of the new evidentiary hearing and it will stand unless there is an entire new trial ordered?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

ziggy,

I don't believe there were Daubert motions in the first trials. I will try to find out, though. IIRC, the problem was the inexperience of Stidham and Crow (in the Misskelley trial) coupled with the State leanings of the judge, as evidenced in the pre-trial hearings and the evidence he excluded.

Of course, Griffis was an idiot and certainly not qualified, but IIRC, the only thing that the defense did to try to impeach him was to show that his "doctorate" was of the mail-order variety and that he had taken no classes to receive it. He was accepted by Burnett as an occult expert, and the jury apparently didn't question his expertise.

There were motions in leminine (sp?) and there may have been other types of motions, too, but I don't recall any Daubert motions. I'm no lawyer, and I don't really understand the distinction. What I know is the defense teams' lack of experience was a real handicap to the defendants. Stidham has said as much during the Rule 37 hearings.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

ziggy,

Daubert was decided right before the trials, so no Daubert motions were filed.