WEST MEMPHIS THREE UPDATE: ECHOLS FILES FOR NEW TRIAL

"You aint gowna bee nnnoo boogey main in West Memphis any more, you're gowna be ded in haaail"-Mark Byers in PARADISE LOST REVELATIONS

Yes, I misspelled the above quote to imitate southern accents. When I first saw the HBO documentary on the West Memphis Three, specifically that scene quoting Mark Byers, at first, I was horrified as I figured a father was grieving. Then I figured, ok, Mark Byers has an honorarium for his "play acting" in the documentary..Then, a friend of mine, mocking Mark Byers quoted him in the deepest southern accent, intimating a skoal chewing redneck, and I busted out laughing, almost in tears. It's the redneck Southern accent, that makes Mark Byers into a tragic comedy (amongst many of Byers behaviors). However, this is no joke, The West Memphis Three still proclaim there innocence as there is ZERO evidence, and DNA has cleared all three of the West Memphis Three. Damien Echols is fighting for his life on death row, and Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelly are being considered for a re trial.
I honestly can't watch the HBO documentaries on the West Memphis Three anymore, as I can understand the anger of the families. I would assume to prove the West Memphis Three's innocence, they would have to prove the guilt of whomever committed this horrid crime. Best of luck to the West Memphis Three and the families of the deceased.
FROM WM3.ORG: WM3 REVELATION
April 16, 2009



Written By: The Arkansas Times Staff

In its final review of the trial of Damien Echols, one of the men known as the West Memphis Three, the Arkansas Supreme Court last week agreed to consider an affidavit filed under seal last year by a Little Rock attorney.

Echols was found guilty and sentenced to death for the murders of three eight-year-old children. Lawyers for the Arkansas attorney general's office had argued that the affidavit, which alleges juror misconduct, was irrelevant and should not be considered.

Lloyd Warford, an attorney with the Arkansas Public Defenders Commission, filed the affidavit in May 2008 in the circuit court in Jonesboro where Echols and co-defendant Jason Baldwin were tried in March 1994. Baldwin was sentenced to life in prison.

Sources familiar with the case say that, in it, Warford states that Kent Arnold, the foreman for the Echols-Baldwin jury, telephoned him repeatedly while the trial was in progress and talked about what was happening.

Judge David Burnett, who officiated at the trial, expressly forbade such discussions. Lawyers for Echols argue that Arnold's conversations with Warford compromised the integrity of the jury process and that Echols deserves a new trial.

Documents submitted to the Supreme Court by Echols' lawyers describe the content of the men's conversations, without identifying either of them by name. According to those filings, Arnold told Warford that he had prejudged Echols' guilt, based on news reports he'd seen from the trial of Jessie Misskelley Jr., a third defendant in the case whose trial was held a month earlier.

A jury found Misskelley guilty, largely due to a confession he made to police that implicated Echols and Baldwin. Those two were tried separately from Misskelley because they did not confess, and information about the Misskelley trial was not supposed to enter their trial.

Nevertheless, the affidavit reportedly states, Arnold told Warford that he was growing frustrated by the “weak, circumstantial” case prosecutors were presenting against Echols and Baldwin, and that if they did not present something powerful soon, it would be up to him to secure a conviction.

A large chart used by jurors during their deliberations and a smaller one kept by one juror support the claim that jurors for Echols and Baldwin discussed the Misskelley confession.

Until filing his affidavit, Warford, a former prosecuting attorney who was once an assistant director of the Arkansas Division of Youth Services, had no role in the case. Arnold knew Warford because he'd represented his brother on a charge of child rape, eventually resolved by a guilty plea to first-degree sexual abuse.

Warford did not come forward with the information about his contact with the jury foreman until May 2008, after a co-worker recalled hearing him mention the improper conversations and passed that information to Echols' lawyers.

Warford did not return a phone message seeking comment.

In 2004, two lawyers representing Echols interviewed Kent Arnold. According to affidavits they filed, Arnold said that Misskelley's confession had been “a primary deciding factor” in the jury's conviction of Echols.

FROM WM3.ORG: ATTORNEY FOR DAMIEN ECHOLS FILES AFFIDAVIT FOR NEW TRIAL WITH ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
March 26, 2009



An affidavit was filed today in Arkansas Supreme Court, petitioning for a new trial for Damien Echols. The motion cites jury misconduct and the complete absence of DNA evidence linking Echols to the crime.

A copy of the affidavit is forthcoming.

Check back here for more details as they become available.


Full Press Release:

DAMIEN ECHOLS SEEKS NEW TRIAL IN ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

New DNA and Forensic Evidence and Juror Misconduct Cited in Plea to Overturn Wrongful Conviction

Prominent Arkansas Attorney Files Sworn Affidavit Stating Jury Foreman Urged Other Jurors to Convict Based Upon False Confession

(Little Rock AR, March 26, 2009) – DNA testing and other powerful forensic evidence - combined with a sworn affidavit that the original jury foreman engaged in blatant misconduct that contributed to the jury’s decision - proves that Damien Echols was wrongfully convicted of three notorious 1993 murders in West Memphis, Arkansas, according to legal papers filed today in the Arkansas Supreme Court asking to overrule a lower court decision and grant Damien Echols a new trial.

Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were convicted in 1994 for crimes they did not commit, and have served 15 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.

Case History

Three eight-year-old boys were found dead in a drainage ditch in Robin Hood Hills, a local wooded area near their homes in West Memphis, on May 6, 1993. Less than a month later, 17-year-old Jessie Misskelley “confessed” to the crime and claimed that Echols and Jason Baldwin sexually abused and beat the victims. Misskelley, a mentally handicapped boy with an IQ of 72, believed he would get a reward for confessing; many of the details of his confession (including the time of day the crimes were committed and the claim of sexual abuse) did not match the facts of the crime. Misskelley was tried and convicted of first-degree murder in February 1994. Baldwin and Echols were tried together after Misskelley’s trial, and were convicted of three counts of first-degree murder. The following day, Echols was sentenced to die, and he has been on death row ever since.

At the time of Damien Echols’s trial, there was no scientific evidence to support the prosecution’s case and a poisonous atmosphere during trial contributed to his wrongful conviction. The prosecution alleged that Echols and two other teenagers committed the crimes as part of a satanic ritual and provided testimony from a faux “expert” whose words created a Salem witch trial atmosphere.


Echols was 18 years old and penniless at the time of his trial, and a court-appointed attorney representing him failed to challenge a pattern of inaccurate and inflammatory statements made by prosecutors and others during the trial, failed to engage forensic experts who could have refuted the testimony that was used to convict Echols, and entered into a contract with documentary filmmakers prior to the trial which improperly influenced legal decisions in the defense.

Crime Scene DNA Does Not Match Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley

Dozens of pieces of evidence found at the crime scene conclusively show that no DNA from the murders matches Echols or the other two men. DNA testing, however, links Terry Hobbs, stepfather of one of the murdered children, to the crime scene, and other evidence has emerged implicating him in the crimes. [Editor's note: Hobbs has denied such charges in the past.]

A hair found in the knot used to bind the victims matches Terry Hobbs. Tests also show foreign DNA – from someone other than Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley – on two of the victims. DNA matches a hair at the murder scene to another man who was with Hobbs on the day of the crimes. This places Hobbs at the scene of the crime, since it refutes any theory that the Hobbs hair was there before the crime. DNA testing linking Hobbs to the crime scene was not available at the time of the trial.

In addition, scientific evidence from the nation’s leading forensics experts demonstrates that most of the wounds on the victims were caused by animals at the crime scene, after their deaths – not by knives used by the perpetrators, as the prosecution claimed and was the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case. Moreover, evidence presented that a knife recovered from a lake near one defendant’s home caused the wounds was completely discredited by the pathologists. As well, the testimony of a jailhouse informant and a faux “expert” who testified that the knife wounds were part of a satanic ritual was deemed incredulous by these forensic scientists.

Jury Foreman Engaged in Shocking and Illegal Activity During Trial

Echols’s brief also informs the Supreme Court that a prominent Arkansas attorney who is a former prosecutor and state official filed a sworn affidavit with the trial court detailing the contents of improper conversations that the jury foreman held with the attorney while the original trial was in progress, clearly violating the law and the rights of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin to a fair and impartial trial. In those conversations, the jury foreman indicates that he had prejudged Echols’s guilt and was trying to convince other jurors to convict based upon news reports of the false confession of Jessie Misskelley, which was barred from admission at the Echols-Baldwin trial.

During one conversation, the jury foreman told the attorney that the prosecution had presented a weak case, and that the prosecution had better present something powerful the next day (the end of the prosecution’s case) or it would be up to him to secure a conviction.

The Arkansas Attorney General has opposed placing the affidavit, originally filed in May 2008 in the Circuit Court that tried the three defendants, in the record before the Arkansas Supreme Court.


Lower Court Decision Denying New Trial Based Upon DNA Law is Flawed and Narrows Legislation’s Intent

In 2001, the Arkansas Legislature passed a law granting post-conviction access to DNA testing. The law passed partly as a result of widespread doubts about the convictions of Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin. The lower court’s decision denying Damien Echols a new trial based upon its narrow interpretation of Arkansas’ new scientific evidence statute (DNA law) was flawed and limits the possibility of any wrongfully convicted defendant of obtaining justice using DNA results. In denying Echols a new trial, the state essentially declares that unless the new DNA establishes absolute exoneration it is not relevant. The judge’s decision would not grant relief, “no matter how scientifically conclusive that a petitioner is not the source of relevant DNA, if not legally conclusive in favor of innocence.”

In fact, according to the Arkansas law (Ark.Code 16-112-201,et seq.) “A person is entitled to a new trial insofar as he can demonstrate that the DNA test results, when considered with all other evidence in the case, regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at trial, establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal.”

Dennis Riordan and Don Horgan, Echols’s lead counsel, assert in their brief before the Supreme Court that “the evidentiary showing made by petitioner completely undermines the state’s evidence and convincingly points in the direction of alternative suspects. Every reasonable juror hearing Echols’s new evidence would doubt his guilt; indeed, any such juror could be confident of his innocence. Petitioner has more than satisfied the standard for relief set forth in Arkansas’ new scientific evidence statutes.”
Thanks-Stay Metal, Stay Brutal- \m/ -l-