I've heard Eddie talking about this case recently. What do people here know about it? What are your opinions?
I notice there's been a few documentaries on the case - 'Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills' and 'Paradise Lost 2: Revelations' - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/ Anyone seen these? I'm downloading them now.
Also, I wasn't aware that Damien Echols co-wrote 'Army Reserve'.
'
I think I am going to watch Revelations and read the Devil's Knot book eventually. I just can't do it all at once. I have to space disturbing stuff like that out. I do hope they get a retrial and that the right people come forth to confess, apologize, and make amends for all the injustice that took place--for the west memphis 6.
Anyone know what 'new evidence' Ed was talking about?
Is it the hair of one of the step-dads in one of the knots used to tie up another kid and the forensic reports that the wounds previously thought to be knife wounds were from animals in the woods, postmortem? Or is that old evidence at this point? :?
Anyone know what 'new evidence' Ed was talking about?
Is it the hair of one of the step-dads in one of the knots used to tie up another kid and the forensic reports that the wounds previously thought to be knife wounds were from animals in the woods, postmortem? Or is that old evidence at this point? :?
That's old evidence. I heard Ed say they've gathered some new evidence.
Forgive me if this was mentioned previously in this discussion, but I read a piece awhile back which mentioned an employee at a Bojangles restaurant near the crime scene who mentioned a black man, covered in blood and staggering into the restroom that same day of the killings. Byrnzie, you may know, was this discredited?
Forgive me if this was mentioned previously in this discussion, but I read a piece awhile back which mentioned an employee at a Bojangles restaurant near the crime scene who mentioned a black man, covered in blood and staggering into the restroom that same day of the killings. Byrnzie, you may know, was this discredited?
My understanding is that they never found the guy and stopped looking because they believe they got the right guys. Not sure how hard they even looked for this guy.
Forgive me if this was mentioned previously in this discussion, but I read a piece awhile back which mentioned an employee at a Bojangles restaurant near the crime scene who mentioned a black man, covered in blood and staggering into the restroom that same day of the killings. Byrnzie, you may know, was this discredited?
It wasn't discredited, but somehow even the two documentaries played this particular episode down. It's just another weird anomaly of the case.
I just read this in some article when googling WM3
"However, Senior Assistant Attorney General David Raupp argues that Echols has not proven that there was a constitutional flaw in his trial or an error relating to the evidence. "
wasn't the whole fucking case an error relating to evidence?
Forgive me if this was mentioned previously in this discussion, but I read a piece awhile back which mentioned an employee at a Bojangles restaurant near the crime scene who mentioned a black man, covered in blood and staggering into the restroom that same day of the killings. Byrnzie, you may know, was this discredited?
the detectives got a blood sample and lost it! outragious.
Court Hears Appeal In 'West Memphis Three' Case
Last Update: 9/30 10:32 pm
MEMPHIS, TN -- A lawyer for Damien Echols, one of the West Memphis Three, told the Arkansas Supreme Court his client's case should be reopened in light of new DNA laws.
The West Memphis Three were convicted of killing three cub scouts.
Defense attorney, Dennis Riordan, says the stakes aren't only important to his client, but to anyone in the same situation.
The hearing was streamed live over the internet.
The legislature passed a law allowing DNA testing in cases where the latest technology wasn't available during the original trial.
Riordan told the court DNA testing done after Damien Echols' conviction didn't place him at the scene.
Riordan says, “Because the fact of the matter is DNA evidence that wouldn't be obtained 15 years ago is now being obtained and it makes things relevant connecting to other things making them relevant that didn't matter 15 years ago.”
Echols was convicted in 1993 with two other defendants known as the "West Memphis Three" for killing 8-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. The boys were found beaten, nude and hog-tied in a wooded area.
Riordan says, “We submitted to the court declaration from a witness who at the time of these offenses or soon there after 1993 was interviewed by police and stated she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible.”
Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.
Roupp says, “It's a statute that permits a defendant to play a trump card, if you will, despite the validity of the conviction.”
During the hearing, Roupp referred to Echols confession several times.
A judge said to him, “You're putting a lot of weight on a confession, but what do you do in your scenario? Where let's say a confession has been recanted later on?”
Roupp fired back at the judge saying the recanted confession isn't new evidence.
More arguments will be heard within the next week.
If the high court grants a new trial for Echols, it would likely open the door for new proceedings for his co-defendants Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, who are both serving life sentences.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court sharply questioned the state attorney general's office Thursday, asking what damage could be done if a judge examined evidence that allegedly exonerates an inmate sentenced to death for killing three Cub Scouts in 1993.
"What harm is there in allowing (inmate Damien Echols) to present all evidence?" Special Justice Jeff Priebe asked senior assistant attorney general David Raupp.
Raupp responded: "The harm is to the criminal justice system's interest in finality and the work that gets done in evaluating whether justice can be served."
Echols, 35, has been on Arkansas' death row since he was 20 years old, sentenced to death for the 1993 killings of 8-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. He's maintained his innocence since his arrest and argues that he would be acquitted if retried on the charges.
The state Supreme Court upheld Echols' conviction in 1996, and Echols filed a new appeal after the court granted him permission to test DNA evidence from the crime scene, where the boys were found beaten, nude and hog-tied.
Thursday's oral arguments drew a crowd of more than 150 people who lined up outside the Supreme Court hours before the hearing began. One of the first in line was John Mark Byers, the stepfather of victim Christopher Byers.
He said that since Echols' trial in 1994, he's become "100 percent" convinced that the wrong man is behind bars.
"The evidence points to his innocence," Byers said.
A key part of Echols' appeal is analysis of DNA evidence that wasn't tested at the time of his trial. According to a DNA report filed with his appeal, none of the genetic material tested from the crime scene matched Echols or Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, the two other men convicted of murder in the case who are known as the West Memphis Three.
"I personally don't believe the three could have gone out there and opened a Twinkie and not leave any DNA," Byers said. "The facts don't fit the evidence."
The mother of victim Steve Branch has also said publicly that she thinks Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley are innocent. Michael Moore's parents could not be reached for comment Thursday, but they have repeatedly declined to talk about the case with reporters.
Justices asked several questions during the hourlong oral arguments, focusing primarily on what would happen if they sent the case back to a lower court for another hearing to determine whether Echols deserves a new trial. Such a move is short of the full retrial Echols has requested, but would be a small victory for his defense.
The state argues that Echols is merely trying to re-argue the case that he already lost before a jury.
"You can't bring in evidence that is just further reweighing of evidence," Raupp said.
Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued a statement after the proceedings, saying his office used "solid precedent" to argue against a new trial for Echols.
"Our justice system affords safeguards to protect the rights of all," McDaniel said. "That includes not only defendants, but also, in this case, the three innocent little boys who were viciously murdered in 1993."
Echols' attorney, Dennis Riordan, argued that it's critical for the Supreme Court to allow Echols to introduce evidence that could exonerate him.
"We believe that there will sometime have to be an order for a new trial," Riordan told the justices.
Echols has lost an appeal before Circuit Court Judge David Burnett, but if the Supreme Court orders another hearing, it will likely be before a new judge. Burnett, who also presided over Echols' murder trial in 1994, is running unopposed for the state Senate in November and cannot serve as both a senator and a judge.
The case has drawn interest far beyond Arkansas. Last month, a rally in Little Rock to support Echols' legal fund featured Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder, actor Johnny Depp and Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines and drew more than 2,000 people.
when the victim's parents think your innocent ... that's massive ...
what it boils down too now is a "system" that is fighting for it's very survival ... we saw that here in ontario with dr. charles smith ... when it came to light that his methods for providing evidence in the case of children's deaths were not sound - everything blew up ... all these people who were convicted based on his evidence were then found to be innocent ... huge compensation ...
these lawyers are basically trying to protect themselves from setting that precedent that the police officers a) did a shit ass job and b) the prosecutor also did a shit ass job ... once these guys get exposed ... it will be one appeal after another down there ...
when the victim's parents think your innocent ... that's massive ...
what it boils down too now is a "system" that is fighting for it's very survival ... we saw that here in ontario with dr. charles smith ... when it came to light that his methods for providing evidence in the case of children's deaths were not sound - everything blew up ... all these people who were convicted based on his evidence were then found to be innocent ... huge compensation ...
these lawyers are basically trying to protect themselves from setting that precedent that the police officers a) did a shit ass job and b) the prosecutor also did a shit ass job ... once these guys get exposed ... it will be one appeal after another down there ...
oh my, shit has hit the fan in Arkie judicial system.
The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:
The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:
And this:
'Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.'
So, despite new DNA testing which has produced nothing to tie Echols to the scene of the crime, along with the statement from a witness - which at the time of the original trial was witheld by the police - that 'she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible', the earlier conviction still stands based on the fact that Echols wore black clothes and read books on the occult?
The authorities are clearly just reluctant to admit that the initial conviction was based on a fraudulent trial, supported by police coercion, corruption, and incompetence.
The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:
And this:
'Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.'
So, despite new DNA testing which has produced nothing to tie Echols to the scene of the crime, along with the statement from a witness - which at the time of the original trial was witheld by the police - that 'she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible', the earlier conviction still stands based on the fact that Echols wore black clothes and read books on the occult?
The authorities are clearly just reluctant to admit that the initial conviction was based on a fraudulent trial, supported by police coercion, corruption, and incompetence.
Comments
I'm the one on the left. :P
http://arkansasnews.com/2010/09/14/supreme-court-going-live-on-internet/
As much as I could see on the WM3 websites, they don't know either. It seems that defense is keeping it in, for the time being.
I think I am going to watch Revelations and read the Devil's Knot book eventually. I just can't do it all at once. I have to space disturbing stuff like that out. I do hope they get a retrial and that the right people come forth to confess, apologize, and make amends for all the injustice that took place--for the west memphis 6.
Is it the hair of one of the step-dads in one of the knots used to tie up another kid and the forensic reports that the wounds previously thought to be knife wounds were from animals in the woods, postmortem? Or is that old evidence at this point? :?
That's old evidence. I heard Ed say they've gathered some new evidence.
Antone here attending the court session today?
My understanding is that they never found the guy and stopped looking because they believe they got the right guys. Not sure how hard they even looked for this guy.
It wasn't discredited, but somehow even the two documentaries played this particular episode down. It's just another weird anomaly of the case.
"However, Senior Assistant Attorney General David Raupp argues that Echols has not proven that there was a constitutional flaw in his trial or an error relating to the evidence. "
wasn't the whole fucking case an error relating to evidence?
the detectives got a blood sample and lost it! outragious.
They've not ruled yet. I think it will be next week.
Meanwhile:
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/lo ... O974g.cspx
Court Hears Appeal In 'West Memphis Three' Case
Last Update: 9/30 10:32 pm
MEMPHIS, TN -- A lawyer for Damien Echols, one of the West Memphis Three, told the Arkansas Supreme Court his client's case should be reopened in light of new DNA laws.
The West Memphis Three were convicted of killing three cub scouts.
Defense attorney, Dennis Riordan, says the stakes aren't only important to his client, but to anyone in the same situation.
The hearing was streamed live over the internet.
The legislature passed a law allowing DNA testing in cases where the latest technology wasn't available during the original trial.
Riordan told the court DNA testing done after Damien Echols' conviction didn't place him at the scene.
Riordan says, “Because the fact of the matter is DNA evidence that wouldn't be obtained 15 years ago is now being obtained and it makes things relevant connecting to other things making them relevant that didn't matter 15 years ago.”
Echols was convicted in 1993 with two other defendants known as the "West Memphis Three" for killing 8-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. The boys were found beaten, nude and hog-tied in a wooded area.
Riordan says, “We submitted to the court declaration from a witness who at the time of these offenses or soon there after 1993 was interviewed by police and stated she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible.”
Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.
Roupp says, “It's a statute that permits a defendant to play a trump card, if you will, despite the validity of the conviction.”
During the hearing, Roupp referred to Echols confession several times.
A judge said to him, “You're putting a lot of weight on a confession, but what do you do in your scenario? Where let's say a confession has been recanted later on?”
Roupp fired back at the judge saying the recanted confession isn't new evidence.
More arguments will be heard within the next week.
If the high court grants a new trial for Echols, it would likely open the door for new proceedings for his co-defendants Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, who are both serving life sentences.
Court hears appeal in 'West Memphis Three' case
By JILL ZEMAN BLEED (AP) – 16 hours ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court sharply questioned the state attorney general's office Thursday, asking what damage could be done if a judge examined evidence that allegedly exonerates an inmate sentenced to death for killing three Cub Scouts in 1993.
"What harm is there in allowing (inmate Damien Echols) to present all evidence?" Special Justice Jeff Priebe asked senior assistant attorney general David Raupp.
Raupp responded: "The harm is to the criminal justice system's interest in finality and the work that gets done in evaluating whether justice can be served."
Echols, 35, has been on Arkansas' death row since he was 20 years old, sentenced to death for the 1993 killings of 8-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. He's maintained his innocence since his arrest and argues that he would be acquitted if retried on the charges.
The state Supreme Court upheld Echols' conviction in 1996, and Echols filed a new appeal after the court granted him permission to test DNA evidence from the crime scene, where the boys were found beaten, nude and hog-tied.
Thursday's oral arguments drew a crowd of more than 150 people who lined up outside the Supreme Court hours before the hearing began. One of the first in line was John Mark Byers, the stepfather of victim Christopher Byers.
He said that since Echols' trial in 1994, he's become "100 percent" convinced that the wrong man is behind bars.
"The evidence points to his innocence," Byers said.
A key part of Echols' appeal is analysis of DNA evidence that wasn't tested at the time of his trial. According to a DNA report filed with his appeal, none of the genetic material tested from the crime scene matched Echols or Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, the two other men convicted of murder in the case who are known as the West Memphis Three.
"I personally don't believe the three could have gone out there and opened a Twinkie and not leave any DNA," Byers said. "The facts don't fit the evidence."
The mother of victim Steve Branch has also said publicly that she thinks Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley are innocent. Michael Moore's parents could not be reached for comment Thursday, but they have repeatedly declined to talk about the case with reporters.
Justices asked several questions during the hourlong oral arguments, focusing primarily on what would happen if they sent the case back to a lower court for another hearing to determine whether Echols deserves a new trial. Such a move is short of the full retrial Echols has requested, but would be a small victory for his defense.
The state argues that Echols is merely trying to re-argue the case that he already lost before a jury.
"You can't bring in evidence that is just further reweighing of evidence," Raupp said.
Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued a statement after the proceedings, saying his office used "solid precedent" to argue against a new trial for Echols.
"Our justice system affords safeguards to protect the rights of all," McDaniel said. "That includes not only defendants, but also, in this case, the three innocent little boys who were viciously murdered in 1993."
Echols' attorney, Dennis Riordan, argued that it's critical for the Supreme Court to allow Echols to introduce evidence that could exonerate him.
"We believe that there will sometime have to be an order for a new trial," Riordan told the justices.
Echols has lost an appeal before Circuit Court Judge David Burnett, but if the Supreme Court orders another hearing, it will likely be before a new judge. Burnett, who also presided over Echols' murder trial in 1994, is running unopposed for the state Senate in November and cannot serve as both a senator and a judge.
The case has drawn interest far beyond Arkansas. Last month, a rally in Little Rock to support Echols' legal fund featured Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder, actor Johnny Depp and Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines and drew more than 2,000 people.
what it boils down too now is a "system" that is fighting for it's very survival ... we saw that here in ontario with dr. charles smith ... when it came to light that his methods for providing evidence in the case of children's deaths were not sound - everything blew up ... all these people who were convicted based on his evidence were then found to be innocent ... huge compensation ...
these lawyers are basically trying to protect themselves from setting that precedent that the police officers a) did a shit ass job and b) the prosecutor also did a shit ass job ... once these guys get exposed ... it will be one appeal after another down there ...
oh my, shit has hit the fan in Arkie judicial system.
The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:
And this:
'Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.'
So, despite new DNA testing which has produced nothing to tie Echols to the scene of the crime, along with the statement from a witness - which at the time of the original trial was witheld by the police - that 'she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible', the earlier conviction still stands based on the fact that Echols wore black clothes and read books on the occult?
The authorities are clearly just reluctant to admit that the initial conviction was based on a fraudulent trial, supported by police coercion, corruption, and incompetence.
i guess killing an innocent man is much better than admitting someone made a mistake ... :(
If you haven't watched it in awhile I recommend it.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
http://www.arkansasonline.com/supremevideo/
I think they'll still be in prison. Even if things start turning out in their favor, the wheels of justice move slowly. :(
yeah it sure is slow... I hope that they are at least granted a new trial. Maybe I should've said "where will they be in 2-3 years?"