Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.