Summary? Guilty or wrongful conviction

[iluvmua]

Also, Why would Terry Hobbs & David Jacoby even be in those woods when Michael, Stevie & Chris showed up?

I find it hard to believe that Terry & David could kill, let alone detain three eight year old boys.

 

[Nova]

To Peanut Monkey:

Thank you for so eloquently and factually stating the case for a new trial. At times, my passion makes me spin a little out of control. Your succinct and insightful reflections are refreshing, especially given your background in the law.

To Nova:

I'm sorry if you thought that I was comparing Seventh Day Adventists to Satanists. That was never my intention. As you said, SDA are indeed Christians who are often misunderstood because of some of their unique beliefs. As a former Mormon, I can truly understand that phenomenon. Damien at the time of the murders was a practicing Wiccan, and several Wiccans often attended the trial to support him. The small-town mentally in West Memphis, similar to the prejudice against SDA that was seen in the Chamberlain trial, was where my comparison was headed. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

Gosh, no, CR! You didn't make that comparison, I did. In both cases, as I understand it, defendants were seen to belong to "suspicious" groups by the respective community from which the jury pool was collected.

I obviously muddied the waters in my zeal to defend the Adventists. I suppose I should have spent the same energy defending Satanism, but I don't think it actually exists, except in occasional incidents of playacting. As Wiccans are quick to point out, "Satan" is a Christian concept, not a pagan one.

 

[Nova]

I see nobody mentioned that evidence was presented at trial that both Echols and Baldwin confessed to the crimes also. There isn't much evidence in this case, but I wouldn't expect much when the bodies were found in water. However, supporters seem awfully quick to discount some of the evidence there is - like people testifying that Echols and Baldwin said they did it.

And yet we now know LE has DNA that was left on the genitals of one of the victims. Apparently, submersion in water leaves quite a bit.

I don't recall a Baldwin confession. The supposed Echols confession is hearsay and contains no confirming details to suggest it is true. Those who claim to have heard it aren't even sure what they heard. At most, it strikes me as an odd kid playing "bada$$".

 

[nephers]

I believe the "Baldwin confession" was a jailhouse confession. I can't remember the persons name off the top of my head but I believe he was trying to cut a deal to testify for a lesser sentence. I'll try to find the info and post a link.

Eta. There is a topic on wm3bloackboard http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a2f494250ba1444768ce4f8d56ac849a&topic=3375.0

It was the first link I found but the basics are that Michael Carson said Baldwin confessed to him during a card game in jail.

 

[Nova]

I believe the "Baldwin confession" was a jailhouse confession. I can't remember the persons name off the top of my head but I believe he was trying to cut a deal to testify for a lesser sentence. I'll try to find the info and post a link.

Now that you mention it, that sounds right to me. IMHO, that "confession" was entirely invented by the snitch. Baldwin has been the steadiest and clearest of the three in his denials.

It's funny: whenever a prosecution has weak evidence, somebody in prison turns up to claim the suspect "confessed." And yet ex-cons are always talking about how everyone in prison claims to be innocent.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The Echols "confession" was as someone said teenaged bragadociousness. Damien already felt alienated from the community, and such a statement was just his attempt to keep everyone at a distance. Damien doesn't remember saying what two teenaged girls said they overheard him say to someone else at a softball game. The Baldwin "confession" was to a jailhouse snitch, Michael Carson, and the Arkansas Department of Corrections employees on duty at the time of the fateful card game say that Jason and Michael were not alone long enough for such a conversation to have taken place without them overhearing it. Jason is shy, and I just don't see him confessing to a stranger anyway. However, neither of these "confessions" have much credence. The girls were after reward money and/or notoriety and Carson wanted a deal.

 

[Fishmonger Dave]

I've looked at "Exhibit 500."

Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that those who believe the WM3 are guilty point to:

1. Damien was crazy. Disturbed. Nuts. In fact, he was getting SSI for psychiatric disability.

2. Jessie Miskeley's multiple confessions. - ALL OF THEM

3. Lack of solid alibis

4. Fiber links

5. Witnessed near the crime scene

6. Two juries said they're guilty

I won't review all the evidence going the other way, I think it's well summarized by Compassionate Reader (and by the blackboard website).

I have something of an unfair advantage in that as an attorney I worked for the prosecutor's Major Crimes division in the early 1980's and am used to looking at cases where there's a "feeling" of guilt because of lists of proofs like those above. I might (it'd either interest or bore you) pull some old files where we had 2 or even 3 suspects about whom a lit could be written in line with the above. Those who still think the WM3 are guilty might have their heads explode because they'd be sure that all the suspects must have done it. In each case, there was only 1 guilty party and the others 100% innocent. (for example --- yeah, a guy really did lie about his alibi to try to buttress it and deflect suspicion. That made him a scared liar, not a killer .... in another, yes, a crack head DID find what turned out to be the murder weapon when he was smoking crack under an overpass and someone threw the gun down, which he then used to rub someone. Guilty of robber ... not murder.... ETC)

But, on the evidence --

1. Damien was crazy. Disturbed. Nuts. In fact, he was getting SSI for psychiatric disability.
From what I've seen, this factor could apply to many of the players in this case equally. James Martin - convicted sex offender who lived near the murder scene and who "guessed" that the kids had been tied with their own laces, John Mark Byers with a brain tumor right on the section of the brain that controls personality with a history of interpersonal violence who had Stevie the night of the murder, Terry Hobbs who had sexually assaulted a neighbor and had experience in slaughterhouses killing animals (which involves stunning them with a blow similar to the one found by the coroner) and who had one of the boys' pocket knives with him that the boy's mom says the boy "always" carried with him (plus last one seen with the boys and denying he saw them), plus his DNA there, plus his friend Jacoby's DNA there when the friend said he never was in the area, plus this weird King Beasley guy who sounded crazier than even Damien.

In other words, the psych issues doesn't narrow the pool much. Whoever gets charged, this'll come in as "why", but it doesn't move an investigation forward.


2. Jessie Miskeley's confessions.
These are interesting in that they are cited by both defenders and those who say they're guilty. I really read them in depth - even tried to scratch out notes and follow along what he was saying. I've read many, many statements over the years and I just have to differ with anyone who thinks they're worth anything.

Jessie didn't see these crimes being committed. He was being lead and lacked detail and never "told a story" the way a real confessor does.

But Jessie not seeing the crime doesn't automatically mean Damien and Jason didn't do it.

3. Lack of solid alibis
People suspected of a crime very often try to buttress their alibi (like - innocent guy finds out killer drove a red car, so he quickly sells his red car because he doesn't want to be accused). Damien's is weak at times as is Jason's. Jessie's own friends make mincemeat of what he claims (when he left and came back for wrestling [meet, not a match] and whether he was so drunk he was throwing up).

Terry Hobbs' failed alibi interests me more. Could be the same phenomena - an innocent guy trying to divert suspicion - but his statements to Mark Byers claiming he was with him from 6:00 to 8:00 is suspicious, to say the least.

4. Fiber links
Even the state said they were weak. It doesn't go to innocence or guilt, but the obvious fact that the State is attempting to defend its favorable legal ruling (the conviction) by fighting the retesting of these fibers with modern methods speaks volumes. Here, you've got defendants not only pushing to test, they're spending time money and resources on doing so. Many defendants claiming innocent back out on having testing done; it's odd to see them pushing this hard for it. Whatever prejudicial value the fibers have is more than offset by the defendants continuing to push for better testing - that says a lot to me based on my experience.


5. Witnessed near the crime scene
These Hollingsworth statements are all over the place. The time of them - 9:30 according to one car occupant, 10:30 according to another; neither makes sense. The woods were being searched by 8:30 and were full of people thereafter. Hobbs, and almost Hobbs alone, was in and out of them all night. Then, that the car occupants didn't see the same people - then, one has to look at least a little at the motivation of the affiandt. She was looking at bounced check / credit card over-ring charges. No much.

6. The juries heard it all. Well, no. They didn't hear about DNA, they didn't hear about Hobbs, they didn't hear about animal predation, they didn't hear about lividity, they didn't hear about marks on the boys' bodies to manholes and rebar.

More importantly, there's the Kent Arnold issues on Jason / Damien jury and the Burnett 'lunch comment" interaction with the Miskeley jury. These things say to me that (a) their verdicts are weakened, and (b) regardless of anything else, they're entitled to a new, fair trial. My crystal ball says with no question: if these guys aren't out as a result of the recent Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, the federal court isn't going to laugh off the jury issues.

I know that there are a few other things thrown out there as "evidence" but each and every piece of it is subject to this same destruction when it's put under a microscope and viewed against a background of experience with these types of crimes.

I wouldn't call it (as I've seen others do) an "IQ test" that one fails if they believe the WM3 are guilty, but I would call it "an experience test" -- Read a lit of easily discredited or minimal value evidence can be very persuasive .... unless you've done it many, many times in the past.

So, yes, I say with great certainty not that they' necessarily innocent, but that there is credible, reliable evidence that justifies a death sentence or a life sentence (or any conviction).


6. Two juries said they're guilty

Some people say that one's position on this case is an IQ test.

If so, in my opinion you pass :woohoo:
I'm no fan of many who claim innocence and are guilty as hell (Mumia Mumbo Jumbo, Melanie McGuire, etc), but the WM3 is disturbing.

Come over to BlackBoard if you want to discuss the case further - http://www.wm3blackboard.com

Either posted there or here (or both), I for one would be very interested in you posting the scenarios you mentioned where it looked like a person was guilty (oooh, XYZ evidence... obviously guilty!) only to be cleared.

I think it would be of great help with those "on the fence" who don't recognize what's going on with the WM3. Showing some examples of cases that were stronger than the WM3 that turned out to be BS might open some eyes.

 

[Peanut Monkey]

A little busy at the moment, but anyone can check the Innocence Project page. They've helped in the exoneration of something like 250 people and have a case extract of each one showing the evidence that was "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" at a trial.

Many of those cases, all of which turned out to be wrong, had far more "proof" than the so-called "non-supporters" talk about.

If there's an open mind in the house, it could help to open some eyes / get a better perspective on the criminal justice system to review some of the more compelling IP cases.

Can anyone else take the time to post some of them here?

 

[Roxye]

Arthur Johnson

Arthur Johnson had no prior criminal history when he was arrested for rape and burglary in 1992. Based entirely on the victim’s identification of him, he was convicted in Sunflower County in 1993, at age 34, of burglary and rape in a two-day trial and sentenced to fifty-five years in prison. No physical evidence linked Mr. Johnson to the crime. Several alibi witnesses testified that Mr. Johnson was at their house at the time of the crime.

Sixteen years after his arrest, all charges were dropped against Arthur Johnson today when it was revealed that the DNA testing that led to his release in February pointed directly to another man who is in prison for sexual assault.

 

[Roxye]

Ray Krone

Investigators relied on bite marks on the victim’s breast and neck. Upon hearing that the victim had told a friend that a regular customer named Ray Krone was to help her close up the bar the previous night, police asked Krone to make a Styrofoam impression of his teeth for comparison. On December 31, 1991, Krone was arrested and charged with murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault.

At his 1992 trial, Krone maintained his innocence, claiming to be asleep in his bed at the time of the crime. Experts for the prosecution, however, testified that the bite-marks found on the victim’s body matched the impression that Krone had made on the Styrofoam and a jury convicted him on the counts of murder and kidnapping.

 

[Roxye]

Michael Blair

Michael Blair quickly became a suspect in this case. He had previously been convicted of a sexual offense, and three eyewitnesses told police they saw him in the park that day. These eyewitnesses, however, did not identify Blair in a photo lineup as the man they saw in the park until after his picture had appeared in the media; at least two witnesses testified that they saw Blair’s photo on TV before identifying him to police. No eyewitnesses ever said they saw Blair and Estell together. On the morning of the crime, a police officer found Blair asleep in his car in Dallas, 17 miles from the park where the victim disappeared. He briefly questioned Blair about why he was sleeping in his car, but did not connect him at the time to Estell’s murder.

 

[Roxye]

David Allen Jones

In 1992, four homicides were committed near the 97th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles, California. All four victims were believed to be prostitutes. The first victim was found, strangled, on September 30, 1992, at the school.

On November 16, 1992, a school custodian discovered the second victim’s partially nude body. The 32-year-old victim had been strangled and was found at the bottom of a stairwell that led to a boiler room.

On December 16, 1992, a motel employee found the third victim in a carport near the school. This 42-year-old victim had also been strangled.

The fourth victim was found about half a mile from the school. She was found partially nude, strangled, in an alley.

Jones was convicted of the first three murders and acquitted of the last.


There were no eyewitnesses to the murders. In late December 1992, David Allen Jones was arrested for an unrelated crime. A team of detectives interviewed him about the string of serial murders of prostitutes. The detectives took Jones to each of the four crimes scenes. Jones eventually confessed to all four murders. Jones had an IQ of 62, classifying him as mentally retarded.

bold mine

 

[Roxye]

Just a few... no time atm for more. Maybe tomorrow.

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[justthinkin]

And yet we now know LE has DNA that was left on the genitals of one of the victims. Apparently, submersion in water leaves quite a bit.

I don't recall a Baldwin confession. The supposed Echols confession is hearsay and contains no confirming details to suggest it is true. Those who claim to have heard it aren't even sure what they heard. At most, it strikes me as an odd kid playing "bada$$".

IIRC, the police put blankets over the bodies of the boys so the foreign DNA could have come from that or other carelessness in processing the scene.
The DNA could mean exactly nothing.

According to testimony, Baldwin confessed to a cell mate when they were being held in juvenile detention.

The two girls testified as to what they overheard Damien say. It is not hearsay since they heard it directly.

Of course I think the WM3 are guilty, and fully expect the now adult witnesses to stand by their original trial testimonies. We shall see.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

justthinkin,

The ADC officers that were present when Jason supposedly "confessed" to a cellmate (Michael Carson) now state that the two were not out of the officers' earshot long enough for such a conversation to have taken place. And, Mr. Carson's counselor told the defense that he (the counselor) told Michael all of the facts in the case that Michael professed to have heard from Jason. Also, Mr. Carson has had repeated run-ins with LE in California since his revelations in this case. He is simply not a credible witness. The softball girls overheard a part of a conversation. They were not actual parties to the conversation, and they didn't even hear the entire conversation. There is no way that they can be sure of the tone Damien used when supposedly making these statements which, if the statements were made, was probably very sarcastic. That was the way Damien dealt with the world when he was a teenager. Even the mother of one of the girls believes that they didn't hear anything significant. Where is the proof of the guilt of the WM3? The "confession" of a mentally-challenged 17 year old which never did (even in three retellings) actually match up with the evidence? (I'm sure you know, but in case you don't, Jessie's last "confession" was in February, 1994. Since then, for over 16 years, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence.) Fibers which could have come from any of thousands of garments at the local Wal-mart which even the prosecution admitted in Paradise Lost was weak evidence? A knife found in a ditch behind a trailer park at least a month after the arrests which has never been linked directly to the crime? (The knife is particularly moot now since experts have indicated that the wounds originally attributed to the knife are actually from post mortem animal predation.) In fact, these young men were convicted on "Satanic panic" stirred by a vindictive social worker and a cult "expert" with a diploma mill doctorate. The "Satanic panic" was IMO one of the main reasons that the juries erroneously convicted the three young men. In the Echols/Baldwin trial, there is evidence (Juror Notes) that indicate that the Misskelley "confession" was used in the deliberations and, for some jurors, was the primary reason they convicted Echols and Baldwin when this "confession" was excluded by Burnett during the trial. Burnett refused to look at this evidence of juror misconduct, but the ASSC has indicated in its recent opinions that this evidence, in fact "all evidence" needs to be considered. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE THREE IN PRISON. If you have other evidence that proves the guilt of the three incarcerated young men, please tell us what it is. The evidentiary hearing recently ordered will bring out even more evidence in this case that cannot (for obvious reasons) be made public at this time. After the hearing, let's see if the State chooses to retry the men in prison. Whether or not the State retries, I'm confident that the original verdicts will be vacated and the three will at worst have to go to county jail to await a new trial at which time they will finally get justice and be freed to live their lives. What I want to know is what, if anything, the State of Arkansas will do to compensate these three for 17+ years in prison for crimes that they didn't commit? No amount of money can replace those years, and that is one of the saddest things about this case IMO.

ETA: Here's a link to a document from callahan to support my statements about the Carson testimony. The pertinent information begins at about page 66 and goes through about page 84 IIRC. It's from Jason's Habeas Petition.

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jb_habeas_petition.PDF

 

[justthinkin]

No credible evidence exists that anyone else killed them either. I, personally do not think the WM3 will be set free unless the unknown DNA matches up with a POI in the case with no connection to the victims' families.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Why do you exclude families? I saw a statistic somewhere (can't recall offhand) that over 60% of child murders are committed by a family member or a friend of the family. Why not in this case?

 

[Nova]

IIRC, the police put blankets over the bodies of the boys so the foreign DNA could have come from that or other carelessness in processing the scene.
The DNA could mean exactly nothing.

According to testimony, Baldwin confessed to a cell mate when they were being held in juvenile detention.

The two girls testified as to what they overheard Damien say. It is not hearsay since they heard it directly.


Of course I think the WM3 are guilty, and fully expect the now adult witnesses to stand by their original trial testimonies. We shall see.

(Emphasis added.) Just to clarify: the testimony of the two girls was apparently ruled an exception to the hearsay rule, but not just because they "heard it directly." Reporting what one was told directly is what hearsay usually is; however, there are exceptions.

A common one is called "declarations against interest" (or words to that effect) and includes statements by the defendant himself that incriminate him. I'm not certain, but I suspect the girls' testimony was allowed on this basis.

****

I appreciate your point about the limits of DNA, but it is odd that half of Arkansas left its DNA on the victims--everyone EXCEPT the defendants. As more and more non-incriminating DNA is accumulated, I think a rational jury will have to go "Hmmm...."

 

[Nova]

Why do you exclude families? I saw a statistic somewhere (can't recall offhand) that over 60% of child murders are committed by a family member or a friend of the family. Why not in this case?

I assume s/he is dismissing DNA from family members (or saying such DNA will be dismissed in Arkansas) because it is to be expected that relatives will trade DNA during normal activities.

 

[Nova]

No credible evidence exists that anyone else killed them either. I, personally do not think the WM3 will be set free unless the unknown DNA matches up with a POI in the case with no connection to the victims' families.

That's a truly scary thought! I hope that's just your low opinion of the Arkansas judicial system (which I can understand).

What a change though! From "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" to "guilty until LE finds somebody who looks even guiltier."