CBS News‘ 48 Hours Mystery, the award-winning news magazine show, will broadcast a feature story on the West Memphis 3 case on Saturday evening, February 27th at 10 p.m. EST. 

Correspondent Erin Moriarity and producer Gail Zimmerman spent over six months developing the story, conducting original research and interviewing new witnesses. Many of the principals in the story will appear on camera, including Damien Echols, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering three young boys and is on death row in Arkansas, Lorri Davis, Mark Byers, Pam Hobbs and Terry Hobbs. Echols’s attorney Dennis Riordan will discuss the legal basis for their innocence and explain why the three men deserve a new trial. Actor Johnny Depp, a strong supporter of the WM3, will also be interviewed. 

Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were convicted in 1994 for crimes they did not commit, and have served 16 years in prison. There was no credible physical evidence, eyewitness testimony or motive tying the three local teens to the murders. Damien Echols was sentenced to death and Jason Baldwin to life imprisonment at their joint trial. Misskelley was tried separately and sentenced to life in prison plus 40 years.  

CBS 48 Hours will highlight new DNA and forensic evidence, as well as shocking juror misconduct that contributed to the convictions.

See preview of CBS 48 Hours, A Cry for Innocence, http://www.cbsnews.com/48hours

Lonnie Soury

In a recent appearance before a local Lions Club in his campaign for a judgeship on the Arkansas Supreme Court, former West Memphis 3 prosecutor and circuit court judge John Fogleman dismissed new DNA evidence found at the crime scene of the three murdered children.  

According to Fogleman, “They found a hair that belonged to a stepfather of one of the boys and another hair belonging to a friend of that stepfather.  But, what is really unusual about finding a hair from a stepfather on his stepson? … And you know, for 15 years the defense said it was stepfather ‘A’. And the hair is from stepfather ‘B’. Hairs are meaningless. A hair from a step-dad on a stepson shouldn’t be unexpected.” 

Judge John Fogleman does not have his facts correct and his comments belie his suitability for a judgeship on the Arkansas Supreme Court. He is discussing a case in which a man is on death row and two others are imprisoned for life for crimes they did not commit.  

DNA consistent with that of  Terry Hobbs was found at the crime scene of the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.  A hair that matched his DNA was discovered in the ligature that bound young victim Michael Moore, not on his own stepson, Steve Branch, as Judge Fogleman publicly declared. 

Sworn affidavits provided to the Arkansas Supreme Court by three eyewitnesses state that Terry Hobbs was last seen with the three boys immediately before they disappeared and were murdered.  The eyewitnesses also state that the police did not interview them at the time of the murders although they lived three doors down from Terry and Pam Hobbs, and that there was hardly any police presence in the area and little if any investigation. 

Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley had strong alibis for their whereabouts the evening of the murders. They did not know the three children, never were seen with them, did not live near them or have any connection whatsoever to their families. Their DNA was not at the crime scene. A knife was not used to kill the three boys according to the country’s leading forensic pathologists, and most of the wounds on their bodies were postmortem animal bites, completely contradicting the prosecution’s own theory of the causes of death. 

“This was a difficult case,” Fogleman said. “But it was investigated thoroughly. Many people were looked at in this case. But I will say, every piece of evidence we had pointed to those three.” 

“Investigated thoroughly”? “Evidence”? The only thorough investigation related to the West Memphis Three case has been the investigation of the failures of the police who investigated the murders, the prosecutors who prosecuted it, and the judge and juries whose bad decisions and misconduct led to the conviction of three innocent teenagers 16 years ago. 

There is plenty of evidence of their innocence and only speculation about their guilt. Anyone who is interested in the facts should read Mara Leveritt’s meticulously researched book Devil’s Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three and Dr. Martin D. Hill’s careful and evenhanded analysis of all the evidence on his website www.jivepuppi.com.  And if you want to judge for yourself just how “thorough” the police investigation was and how much “evidence” they gathered against Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, you can go to www.callahan.8k.com for a wealth of primary documents–police notes, trial transcripts, crime lab reports, etc. I trust that anyone who knows the facts will recognize that Fogleman was, and remains, dead wrong about the case and is not someone we can trust to guard our rights on the Arkansas Supreme Court.

 Lonnie Soury, Arkansas Take Action

Terry Hobbs, stepfather of West Memphis murder victim Stevie Branch, thought he was in for a big payday after filing a federal defamation suit against Natalie Pasdar (Maines) of the Dixie Chicks for comments she made during a press conference in Little Rock in 2007. 

Unfortunately for Hobbs, Judge Brian Miller of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas wasted little time in summarily dismissing the lawsuit, but not before Hobbs was deposed for two days by Maines’s attorneys. In the past, Hobbs had stated that he never saw the three boys the day they were murdered, but during depositions taken on July 21, 2009, he reiterated for the first time under oath that he never saw his stepson, Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers or Michael Moore at any time on May 5, 1993. 

“It’s your testimony that you did not see Stevie Branch at all the day of May 5^th of 1993. Correct?” Hobbs’s answer: “Correct.” “Did you see Stevie at all that day, May 5^th?” Answer: “No, I did not.” “Did you see any of the three boys that day?” Answer: “No, I did not. No I never seen Stevie that day.”

Hobbs’s actions and whereabouts the night of the murders have always been suspect, and his explanations have never been consistent.  Now, three new eyewitnesses have submitted sworn affidavits to the Arkansas Supreme Court contradicting Hobbs’s own words under oath and identifying him as the last person to have custody of the children immediately before their disappearance and murders.  According to these eyewitnesses, Hobbs lied when he stated that he had not seen the three children that evening. Their sworn affidavits state unequivocally that Hobbs was with the three children at approximately 6:30 p.m.

Hobbs’s statements under oath are of immense importance to the innocence claims of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley.  Hobbs’s alibi is completely undermined by these witnesses.

Other statements taken under oath during discovery in the lawsuit included those of Pam Hobbs, her sister and mother; David Jacoby, Hobbs’s friend, whose own DNA was found at the crime scene; and Mildred French, a woman who was sexually assaulted by Terry Hobbs. These witnesses paint a rather shocking picture of the life of Terry Hobbs, which not only raises questions of his guilt, but also points to the actual innocence of the West Memphis 3.

Terry Hobbs’s DNA was found at the crime scene of the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. He was last seen with the three boys immediately before they disappeared and were murdered.  Stevie Branch’s mother, Pam Hobbs, believes that her husband at the time, Terry Hobbs, was involved in the murder of her child.

Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley had strong alibis of their whereabouts the evening of the murders. They did not know the three children, never were seen with them, did not live near them or have any connection whatsoever to their families. Their DNA was not at the crime scene. A knife was not used to kill the three boys according to the country’s leading forensic pathologists, and most of the wounds on their bodies were postmortem animal bites, completely contradicting the prosecution’s own theory of the causes of death.

Natalie Maines is a hero.  Not only did she come to Little Rock, Arkansas, to help publicize the new DNA and forensic evidence uncovered in the effort to free the West Memphis 3, but she made a courageous decision to defend against Terry Hobbs’s defamation suit.  She, and the Dixie Chicks, could have easily paid Hobbs off to avoid any embarrassment over the bogus defamation claims. But they chose to defend against his allegations, not in their own self -interest, but in the interests of Damien, Jason and Jessie.  

Some deride the motives of famous people when they come forward and speak out on issues of importance. Natalie Maines, more than most, knows the perils of taking an unpopular public position.  What she has done in the efforts to free the West Memphis 3 is nothing short of selfless.

Lonnie Soury

The legal community, nationally as well as in Arkansas, has emerged as an important ally in the effort to obtain a new trial for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. 

The Arkansas Law Review, a publication of the University of Arkansas School of Law in cooperation with the Arkansas Bar Association, has published a lengthy and scholarly article reviewing the legal issues surrounding the innocence claims of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. 

“Lock ’Em Up and Throw Away the Key: The ‘West Memphis Three’ and Arkansas’s Statute for Post-Conviction Relief Based on New Scientific Evidence” by David S. Mitchell, Jr., unequivocally calls upon the Arkansas Supreme Court to grant a new trial to Damien Echols, whose case is currently on appeal before the court.

The Arkansas Law Review article comes on the heels of the support of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Northwestern University School of Law’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, which jointly submitted an amicus brief to the Arkansas Supreme Court on behalf of Echols’s appeal for a new trial.

According to the Law Review, the circuit court employed a very narrow interpretation of the post-conviction relief (DNA) statute  to deny Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley a new trial. “A close examination of the legal and factual issues presented by Echols’s motion for a new trial reveals the circuit court’s failures on each level, particularly the way the circuit court’s interpretation of the statute eviscerated its purpose.”

Echols’s case meets the standards set forth in the Arkansas statute as well as the intention of the legislature when the statute was passed in 2001. “The court may then grant a motion for a new trial or resentencing if the DNA test results, when considered with all evidence in the case regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at trial, would establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in acquittal. The new evidence is sufficient to establish that any reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt as to Echols’s guilt…”  

Read article: http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/about.html

Lonnie Soury

The standard for granting a new trial is: would a reasonable juror presented with evidence not available at the original trial come to a different conclusion from the one which convicted the defendants? Given all the compelling new evidence in the West Memphis 3 case, is there any doubt that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley deserve a new trial?  Apparently!

“The circuit court correctly denied Echols’s relief because his testing results are inconclusive as to his claim of actual innocence because they do not show a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offenses…..” So states Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel in his final legal response to the Arkansas Supreme Court in Damien Echols’s appeal for a new trial. McDaniel denies that there is a reasonable probability that Damien, Jason and Jessie did not commit these crimes for which they have been wrongfully convicted.  The AG  also fails to even review the new evidence in any cohesive manner, much less accurately comment upon its “reasonableness.”  Therefore, allow me to do so.

Is it reasonable to assume that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were not at the crime scene considering that not one microscopic piece of their DNA was found there?

Is it reasonable to assume that the people whose DNA was found at the crime scene had a higher probability of being involved in these heinous crimes than Damien Echols, Jason or Jessie?

Is it reasonable to assume that the man whose hair was found bound in the knots tying one of the boys either before or after his murder – Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the murder victims – could possibly be involved in this crime?

Is it reasonable to assume that the prosecution’s original case, based upon a knife as the murder weapon, has been completely refuted by the country’s leading forensic pathologists, who recently testified that wounds found on the boys, which appeared to the untrained eye to be knife marks, were actually post mortem animal bites and scratches?

Is it reasonable to assume that Jessie Misskelley, whose IQ was tested at 67/72, was coerced into making a series of statements that were deemed a confession even though the facts he gave police did not match anything at the crime scene, the most revealing being that he stated that the boys were killed at 9:00 a.m. when, in fact, they were all in school?

Is it reasonable to expect impartiality from a man whose father’s law firm was intimately involved in this case? Phillip Wells of McDaniel & Wells was appointed ‘court liaison’ by Judge Burnett. Within days of the appointment, the law firm unethically issued press statements claiming that there was a new witness who would bolster the prosecution’s case. Of course, the witness never appeared. Shockingly, McDaniel Wells was also involved in the prosecution’s failed attempt to convince Jessie Misskelley to testify against Damien and Jason. Jessie refused to do so because he knew they were innocent.  A matter of little concern to the McDaniels.

Is it reasonable to assume that Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has added nothing substantive in his brief (see www.freewestmemphis3.org) to lead any reasonable jurist to conclude that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley deserve anything less than to have their convictions overturned and be granted a new trial?

If reasonable jurists were to review the new evidence in this case, including the sworn statements of three new witnesses who place Terry Hobbs with the three boys immediately before their disappearance and murder, I would expect them to stand up and finally do the right thing: throw out these convictions, get Damien Echols off death row and right a terrible wrong.

Lonnie Soury, Arkansas Take Action

Damien Echols defense team is scheduled to file its final brief to the Arkansas Supreme Court on November 30, 2009.  The court is expected to hold oral arguments in early 2010.

“I am absolutely, completely and totally positive that I saw Terry Hobbs hollering at Stevie, Michael and Christopher to get back down to the Hobbs’s house at approximately 6:30 p.m. If Terry Hobbs said he did not see Stevie Branch, Michael Moore or Christopher Byers on May 5, 1993, he is not telling the truth.  I know for a fact that Terry Hobbs saw, was with and spoke to Stevie, Michael or Christopher on May 5, 1993.”  www.freewestmemphis3.org

Nothing equivocal about Jamie Clark Ballard’s sworn statement that Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Stevie Branch, was the last person to have custody of the three children immediately before they disappeared the night of May 5, 1993.  For 16 years, Jamie did not understand the significance of her observation and that of her sister and mother who lived only three doors down from the Hobbs’s home.  Why should she?  She assumed that the West Memphis police had interviewed the parents of the three children after their murders.  And that Terry Hobbs had informed the police that he was with the children at 6:30 p.m. that evening. But that was not the fact.   Terry Hobbs was never interviewed by the police about the children’s disappearance and murder.  He also never told his wife Pam, mother of Stevie Branch, until 8:30 p.m. that the children had disappeared, although she expected her son to be home by 5:30 pm. 

Most importantly, and why this new evidence is crucial to the innocence of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Terry Hobbs has stated under oath that he “never saw the boys” the day they died.  He said this under oath in a recent deposition. He said as much in 2007 to the West Memphis police who interviewed him after his DNA was found to be at the crime scene. He has stated this on the record for 16 years, in other venues, that he did not see the boys that day.  Former NYPD homicide detective Jay Salpeter interviewed the three women after they contacted the defense team by calling our new evidence tip line in West Memphis. He is convinced there are more people in the area who have important  information about these murders. The confidential tip line is 501-256-1775.

The three witnesses have come forward for no other reason than they now realize that what they saw that evening is very important. They have not come forward because there is a reward for new evidence;none is offered.  They have not come forward for their moment in the sun; they are reluctant to do any interviews.  They did not come forward for 16 years because they believed the police had fully investigated these murders and, of course,  knew this information.  The police did not interview Hobbs or effectively investigate the murders.   The three eyewitnesses came forward because they believed that they had crucial information that the Arkansas Supreme Court, currently reviewing Damien Echols’s appeal for a new trial, must know.

Just to review some of the new evidence that any reasonable justice should consider in granting new trials to Damien, Jason and Jessie:

- DNA from Terry Hobbs and his friend David Jacoby were the only human DNA found at the crime scene in Robinhood Hills.

– Terry Hobbs’s hair was found entwined in the knot used to bind one of the boys, not even his own son.

– No DNA belonging to Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley was found at the crime scene – or anywhere.

– The country’s leading forensic pathologists have testified that the wounds described by the prosecution as the cause of death were not from a “serrated knife” but were post mortem animal bites, thus completely discrediting the prosecution’s entire case.

– A prominent former prosecutor and local attorney has come forward in a sworn affidavit submitted to the Arkansas Supreme Court, stating that the jury foreman in Damien and Jason’s trial, Kent Arnold, called him repeatedly during the trial and informed him that he was going to introduce Jessie Misskelley’s confession into deliberations, although the so-called confession was not allowed into evidence as Jessie had recanted and refused to testify against Damien and Jason.  Arnold also informed the attorney that the prosecution was going poorly and it was up to him to gain a conviction.  This structural defect in the case is enough to have the court grant a new trial.

– By any standard, Jessie Misskelley’s admissions were false and coerced.  Jessie was a disabled teenager and easily influenced by the police.  Among the many discrepancies in his statements about the crime scene, his alleged admission that he saw the victims at 9:00 a.m. on May 5, 1993, was impossible as all three boys, as well as Jason Baldwin, were in school all day.  The time of death was between 10 and 18 hours later.   

 Lonnie Soury

From Holly Ballard’s blog on www.freewestmemphis3.org

First witness: Mike Allen

Allen is currently the Asst. Chief of the West Memphis Police Department and was a sergeant in 1993. Testimony began by Allen describing aerial photographs of the area surrounding the “10-Mile Bayou,” the drainage ditch where the boys’ bodies were found. Allen testified that in the process of retrieving a tennis shoe that had been earlier spotted floating in the water, he fell in. He was knee- to thigh-deep in the water when he felt with his leg something in the water. When he lifted his leg, he discovered the first body (Michael Moore), which had not been visible and “kind of floated to the top.” He testified that the water was not totally stagnant but was not moving very fast, that the bottom felt “kind of mucky,” and that he did not see any animals in the woods nor any type of aquatic life in the ditch. When the body surfaced, he backed out of the water and stood on the bank until other investigators arrived on the scene. Detective Bryn Ridge then searched downstream and located the two other bodies. As far as security is concerned, Allen testified that the crime scene was roped off with tape and a log was kept of everyone who entered the crime scene. The bodies were removed from the water and placed on the bank. Detective Ridge found clothing pinned to the bottom of the ditch with sticks. The ditch was sandbagged and the water was pumped over the sandbags. Again, Holt asked Allen if he noticed any aquatic wildlife during the pumping process or that remained after the pumping was complete.

Here’s where I chime in on this issue: ever seen a kid chasing tadpoles? I’d think any five-year-old could tell you that if you stir up water in a creek, wildlife scatter, which Hendrix later pointed out on redirect. Besides that, Allen testified that the floating shoe was the “furthest thing from his mind” after the bodies were found. True, they searched the ditch bed for 6 or 7 hours for evidence (weapons, etc.), but were they focused on looking for turtles, tadpoles, etc.? Would they have noticed if they’d been there? He also testified that the mosquitoes either were not present or he didn’t notice them. Any Arkansan will tell you it had to have been the latter. (Later, following Hendrix’s cross-examination noted below, Jessie’s attorney Michael Burt took and drove these points home. He asked Allen if he was aware that Ridge had been on the scene that morning, I think I heard on a three-wheeler, obviously scaring away animals. Allen testified that it did occur to him that poisonous snakes and other dangerous animals might be in the water, but that he didn’t notice these or any turtles, etc., on the surface of the water. Burt again pointed out that Allen wouldn’t have been able to see to the bottom of the water.)

Once Holt rested, Defense Attorney Blake Hendrix picked up to cross-examine, at which point Allen’s memory suddenly began to fail. I wish I had a dollar for every, “That I don’t recall.” Allen testified that three other people were there when he arrived, but he was the first person to actually get into the water and the only person to do so that day. (At least, that’s what I understood, but maybe I was mistaken because later he testified that it was Ridge who found the last two bodies.) Allen actually fell in the first time he attempted to reach the shoe and then crossed over the ditch and entered the water again. Hendrix pointed out the splash that falling in would have made, and the fact that if the water was murky enough not to be able to see a body, they wouldn’t have been able to see marine life either. Allen testified that he couldn’t say whether, by 1993, he’d had any training in child homicides, and said that he had not had any training regarding bodies found in water. Regarding Ridge’s methods, all Allen could say was that Ridge found the bodies by starting upstream and wading in the water. Hendrix eventually got Allen to concede that all this movement could plausibly have scared any marine life away. Hendrix then asked a pointed question: was Allen aware that animal hairs were found on the bodies? All Allen could say was a quiet, “No sir.” After Burt’s cross and Holt’s redirect, Allen stepped down.

So, although testimony was relatively tame, there were a few surprises. I was surprised, for example, to see Pam Hobbs in the courtroom today, since I hadn’t seen her here before (though she’s been openly supporting the WM3 for a while now). I spoke with her briefly during lunch recess, and she said she was here to request a chance to speak in court. She hopes to tell the court that this case was a rush to judgment, and to consider this new evidence rather than the scant circumstantial evidence presented in 1994. I expressed to her how impressed I am with her courage, and I think I speak for all of us in telling her that I hope for justice for her son as well as for the West Memphis 3. As I left the courtroom, she was speaking to Cecilea Pond-Mayo from Channel 4, and I believe 7 and 11 were filming as well.) I was also surprised not to see John Mark Byers, and more surprised still that I was able to win a staring contest with Judge Burnett (not so much because I won, but because he had his eyes open at all). Also, I just overheard that a suited gentleman I’ve been wondering about all morning is a representative from Attorney General’s office. (For those of you who don’t know, Dustin McDaniel is notoriously unsupportive of this case and is connected to those who helped convict the WM3 in the first place.)

Right before they kicked me out of the courtroom, I overheard Holt say that Bryn Ridge was bringing him something, so I’ll be interested to see what comes out after recess. I actually passed Ridge getting into the elevator, and I hear Peretti is waiting in the wings to testify. It’s so bizarre seeing these people face to face after all this time.

Recess has ended, and the prosecution is carrying in several blown up maps and photos. I’ll update again at the next recess or after the hearings end today.

Free the 3!

The Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law, and the 13,000 member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have jointly filed an amicus curiae brief with the Arkansas Supreme Court asking that the justices grant Damien Echols a new trial in his appeal currently before the court.  The amicus briefs were filed on Thursday, September 17, 2009 along with the complete appeal file.

This unprecedented support from two of the country’s leading legal organizations sends a very strong message that many in the legal community believe a grave injustice has been perpetrated, and it must be rectified.  

The brief cites the violation of Echols and Jason Baldwin’s constitutional rights when the jury was exposed to Jessie Misskelley’s false confession by jury foreman Kent Arnold, who not only lied about his knowledge of the confession but felt compelled to introduce the false confession into jury deliberations.

The amicus curiae brief   states, “It is now known that Echols’ jury violated the constitution and the judge’s instructions by discussing Misskelley’s confession during deliberations, not long after one juror told his attorney that he was growing frustrated by the state’s weak collection of  circumstantial evidence and that if prosecutors did not present something powerful soon, it would be up to him to secure a conviction. 

“Echols’ conviction and death sentence have been gravely tainted by the jury’s improper consideration of the extraordinarily prejudicial – and extraordinarily unreliable -confession of Jessie Misskelley.

“Compounding the jury foreman’s misconduct is the fact that the Misskelley confession is highly unreliable,” said Steven Drizin, Legal Director of Northwestern University School of Law’s renowned Center on Wrongful Convictions, who co-authored the amicus brief.  “Juveniles and the mentally retarded are much more likely than adults to falsely confess when pressured by police, and Misskelley’s confession bears all of the hallmark traits of a false confession.”

With all the new evidence of their innocence, including the blatant jury misconduct, DNA linking others to the crime scene, forensic testimony from the country’s leading pathologists and, what is universally recognized as a false confession, what more does the state of Arkansas need to free these innocent men?  It is time for the justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court to right a terrible wrong.  Overturn these convictions and find and prosecute those guilty of the murder of the three young boys in West Memphis in 1993.

http://freewestmemphis3.org/download/finalamicusbrief_signed.pdf

Lonnie Soury

The hearing in Jonesboro, Arkansas which ended a few weeks ago represented a watershed in the effort to overturn the convictions of  Jason Baldwin, Jessie Misskelley and Damien Echols.  Although the Rule 37 hearing for ineffective counsel involved only Jason and Jessie, the evidence presented had a very strong impact on innocence of all three wrongfully convicted young men.

Some of the country’s leading forensic experts, Drs. Werner Spitz, Michael Baden, Richard Souviron and Janice Ophoven, presented compelling scientific testimony that the murders of the young boys in 1993 were not committed with a knife, which was the basis of the prosecution’s entire case.  The testimony that the terrible wounds on the children were, in fact, the result of animal bites and scratches while their bodies were in the drainage ditch in Robin Hood Hills, undermines both the cause of death assertions, as well as the prosecution’s motive of a ritualistic killing.

Furthermore, the appearance of Vicki Hutcheson on the witness stand during the last day of the hearings, prepared to testify that she lied in the original trial implicating Jessie, Jason and Damien in satanic cult activity, was chilling.

While Judge Burnett refused to grant her immunity from perjury prosecution and she therefore refused to testify under oath, she confirmed outside the courtroom that she had been virtually forced by the police investigators in West Memphis to make up the story of cult activity and falsely implicate the defendents. 

The evidence presented by the forensic experts and other witnesses was so strong and the DA’s office so unprepared to refute it, Judge Burnett quickly postponed the hearings until October to allow the DA to “find” someone to challenge the evidence.  Good luck.

New DNA evidence establishing that there was none of the three young men’s DNA at the crime scene while implicating others, new forensic testimony by the country’s leading pathologists, recantations by important witnesses and shocking evidence of juror bias and misconduct during the trials, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley are innocent.  It is time that the Arkansas Supreme Court intervenes and do what is obvious to every impartial observer: overturn the convictions and grant these men a new trial.

According to Lisa Fancher of WM3.org., and Holly Ballard of Arkansas Take Action, both of whom are  monitoring the hearings, the pathologists testified that  the wounds on the bodies (except for the blows to the head which contributed to their deaths) were caused by animals, not knives. That the state pathologist’s autopsy was not competent and that his opinions and testimony at the original trial were incorrect, and the case the state presented was false, as no knives were used to create the injuries on the bodies. They are not the cause of death. Blunt force trauma and drowning caused their deaths and animals damaged their bodies.

This is very powerful testimony that in itself should be enough for any unbiased judge to grant a new trial for Jason and Jessie.  Generally, the standard for a new trial consists of whether new evidence presented at the time of trial would have resulted in a different decision by the jury. If the standard for granting a new trial in this hearing is that their original trial attorneys failed to utilize expert pathologists and therefore the jury was not exposed to crucial testimony that the cause of death and the wounds found on these youngsters was wholly inconsistent with the prosecution’s case, then Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley should have their convictions overturned and be granted a new trial.  The Arkansas Supreme Court should then follow suit and grant Damien Echols a new trial.

Lonnie Soury