Latest news on the west memphis 3

forgotten_child

Latest News: Motions for a New Trial have been denied for all three men by Judge Burnett.



its not over until its over.

MrBrian

forgotten_child wrote:

its not over until its over.

That's so true, like really true, I love it. Because something can not actually be over until it's actually, over. shit's crazy.

anyway, the west memphis 3. I didnt know much about them. It was eddie vedder showing a memphis 3 t shirt I think during 'do the evolution' on touring band 2000. Then I looked them up. I still don't know much about them, it just seems like yet another group of victims of an unjust system?

forgotten_child

WM3 slam of Jonesboro judge


Advocates for the West Memphis Three have distributed a statement slamming Circuit Judge David Burnett of Jonesboro for refusing to hold a hearing on new DNA evidence in the murder cases agains the three and denying a new trial for Damien Echols, who has been sentenced to die. He has two more petitions under consideration. I guess the WM3 supporters figure he's not going to get any better.


STATEMENT ON WM3 DECISION

Following a ruling Wednesday that no new evidence would be heard in the case of the West Memphis Three, supporters of the three men maintain vehement opposition to what they call the "mockery" being made of the Arkansas legal system in this case.

"Judge [David] Burnett¢s order yesterday denying Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin a new trial was more than just another injustice in the long and tragic history of this case; it blatantly disregarded the statute that our Legislature enacted in 2001 to ensure that citizens are not executed or imprisoned when new scientific evidence demonstrates that they are innocent," said Lorri Davis, wife of Damien Echols.


According to Arkansas Take Action, a non-profit organization formed to seek justice for three men convicted of the triple homicide of three young boys in 1993, the 2001 statute requires a judge to weigh all evidence regarding guilt or innocence. The statute expressly orders that a judge will consider new items of evidence not presented at the original trial to determine whether a defendant would now be acquitted by a jury of peers.
If Burnett had allowed it, the court would have heard a multitude of evidence, including the following:

1.
that none of the collected DNA matched any of the defendants, but DNA evidence points to another suspect, Terry Hobbs (stepfather of one of the victims);

2.
that witnesses placed Echols at his residence on the phone several miles away;

3.
that the wounds the prosecution claimed were inflicted in a satanic ritual by a survival knife found near Baldwin¢s house were shown by forensic pathologists to be the result of post-mortem animal predation;

4. that the state¢s Satanic expert was a fraud, having obtained his Ph.D.
through a now-defunct mail-order college, and later having written a book claiming that two girls were abducted by aliens but recalled nothing of the encounter until he, Dale Griffis, was able to extract the information through hypnosis; and,

5. that a key prosecution witness, Anthony Hollingsworth, who testified to seeing Echols near the crime scene, had explicit motive to lie to prosecutors. Not only was he on probation for sexually assaulting his sister at the time of his testimony, but recent child rape charges against him were dismissed by one of the prosecutors in the case.


In addition to all this, ATA co-chair Capi Peck said, "the notion that Echols¢ and Baldwin¢s guilt was determined by facts presented from the witness stand at trial is preposterous in light of what has been revealed as jury misconduct." A sworn affidavit from a Little Rock attorney, hired on an unrelated matter in 1994 by original Echols-Baldwin trial jury foreman Kent Arnold, outlines the misconduct in explicit detail.


According to the affidavit, still under seal, Arnold admitted that he had:

1.
misled the court about his opinions in order to secure his selection as a jury member;

2.
prejudged the defendants¢ guilt;

3. used a statement from Jessie Misskelley from a separate trial in the case to sway the jury to return a guilty verdict. (This despite the fact that he told the Little Rock lawyer the prosecution had not proved its case and that the Misskelley statement was all they would have to go on).


Misskelley's statement was inadmissible in the Echols-Baldwin trial, as Misskelley had recanted and refused to testify against the other two men.
The jury's consideration of it, from what had been gleaned from news sources, and the prosecution's "slip" in referring to it during arguments was a clear violation of the defendants' sixth amendment rights

"By refusing to hear the evidence not presented at the first trial, Judge Burnett has evaded, but cannot suppress, a simple truth," Davis said. "Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin would surely be acquitted of these charges if they were tried today.
"

know1

Those aren't exactly compelling reasons to have a new trial.

HatredThrownDown

are they guilty beyond reasonable doubt? hell no. thats the bottom line.

kcherub

I am a total "legal" junkie. I have been following this case for several years, and I cannot imagine the frustration involved. If what I have read (and not just on the WM3 site) is correct, how can the Arkansas legal system ignore the need to bring justice to the families of the little three boys? Just because someone is in jail for a crime doesn't make it "justice" if someone else might be involved.

I have never understood why a court system would not want to hear evidence, especially DNA which is so much more sophisticated these days. If it would still prove the DA's office's theory, okay. If it would prove that a man is innocent, okay. Why just ignore it?!?

I know it is a completely different thing, but it kind of goes to show you that the judicial system can be a little quirky at times. I worked for an attorney (wanted to be one for a long, long time) during the OJ trial. We watched every single minute of that trial. Even though I agree that important things were improperly done in that case, and can sort of see why the jury aquitted him (based upon their instructions), the evidence (true evidence) against him was immense. If he could get off with all of that evidence against him...

I realize that there are thousands of people in prison claiming to be innocent. However, when there is evidence available that might prove their innocence, I find it mind-boggling that it wouldn't be given a good look. Ugh. Things like this scare the living crap out of me. I think all of us can envision ourselves, or someone we care about, being caught up in something like this. Scary stuff.

kcherub

know1 wrote:

Those aren't exactly compelling reasons to have a new trial.

I think that 1 and 3 would be the compelling ones. Science is pretty hard to invalidate. If there truly is new scientific evidence, it should be looked at.

It's hard to concretely prove that people are credible or not, so I agree that "witnesses" aren't the strongest points for a new trial. No matter which side we are talking about.