May 18, 2010 marked not only a victory for the state of Arkansas but also a symbolic victory for the victims in the West Memphis 3 case: John Fogleman lost his bid for a seat on Arkansas’s highest court.

John Fogleman was a prosecuting attorney in the case against Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley. While he “won” the case, the taint of prosecutorial misconduct still haunts the credibility of the verdict. He accepted and used a false confession as well as argued an incorrect theory as to how the victims were killed. While Fogleman argued that a knife was responsible for the children’s wounds, the country’s leading forensic pathologists determined that a knife was not used in their murder, and most of the wounds on their bodies were in fact postmortem animal bites. As a result of his professional malpractice, Damien Echols was sent to death row, where he sits today, while the other two defendants, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin, are spending the rest of their lives in prison for a crime virtually every expert believes they did not commit. And as new evidence of their innocence comes to the fore, their unjust conviction is cast in an even stronger light.

And so, it was more than ironic when Fogleman announced his candidacy to seek the highest position of Justice for the state of Arkansas. In a report on prosecutorial misconduct and error, the Washington, DC Center for Public Integrity said that, “Former Crittenden County deputy prosecuting attorney John Fogleman took part in at least three of the 54 cases [cited in the report from Arkansas]. In one, the court found his conduct to be so prejudicial as to require a new trial. In another, a dissenting judge would have reversed a murder conviction because of Fogleman’s tactics.”

Damien Echols, one of the three defendants in the West Memphis 3 case who sits on death row as a result of Fogleman’s highly prejudicial handling of the case, has written a letter addressing Fogleman’s defeat. He expresses his appreciation to the people of Arkansas who have helped move their justice system in a better direction. In Damien’s letter, he writes:

“I just want to say thank you to everyone who went out and voted […], and made certain that Fogleman didn’t win. I cannot express my gratitude enough. There have been times when I felt that no one in the state cared about this case, or that perhaps everyone even approved of it. I do not feel that way now. I just feel grateful. Thank you very, very much. Fogleman’s ability to hurt more people and destroy more lives has been greatly limited. It also sends a loud and clear message that continued corruption won’t be tolerated. Thank you.” (Echols’s letter can be read in its entirety, along with other letters he has written, on www.westmemphis3.org).

Thankfully, Arkansans did not fall for Fogleman’s political campaign and he will not be able to bring his approach to justice to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Rachel Silverman

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……not so fast.

In fact, the US District Court ordered Terry Hobbs to pay Natalie Maines $17,000 in legal fees for the frivolous lawsuit that he brought against her. Court order

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 a few months ago, but not before Hobbs was deposed for two days by Maines’s attorneys. “It’s your testimony that you did not see Stevie Branch at all the day of May 5th of 1993. Correct?” Hobbs’s answer: “Correct.” “Did you see Stevie at all that day, May 5th?” 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 statements under oath completely undermine his alibi, as new eyewitnesses have recently come forward to place him with the children immediately before they disappeared and were murdered.

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, were never seen with them, did not live near them or have any connection whatsoever to their families. Their DNA was not at the crime scene. According to the country’s leading forensic pathologists, a knife was not used to kill the three boys, and most of the wounds on their bodies were postmortem animal bites, completely contradicting the prosecution’s own theory of the causes of death.

As we said about Natalie Maines in a previous entry, she, 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. Now she is $17,000 richer.

Lonnie Soury

It has been 17 years since John Fogleman led the tainted prosecution that sent Damien Echols to death row and Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin to prison for life for crimes no reasonable person believes they committed.

Today, the man who pushed past the boundaries of legal ethics to obtain those wrongful convictions seeks a judgeship on the state’s highest court, the Arkansas Supreme Court. The same court will soon decide whether new evidence in Damien Echols’s case, including the uncovering of shocking juror misconduct in the original trial, will be enough to set him free.

In obtaining convictions in the West Memphis 3 trials, Fogleman did exactly what many prosecutors would do when faced with no serious police investigation, no credible witnesses, no evidence linking the accused to the crimes: he closed his eyes to the truth and hoped the lies would convince 12 jurors to agree.

In a report on prosecutorial misconduct and error, the Washington, DC Center for Public Integrity said that “Former Crittenden County deputy prosecuting attorney John Fogleman took part in at least three of the 54 cases [cited in the report from Arkansas]. In one, the court found his conduct to be so prejudicial as to require a new trial. In another, a dissenting judge would have reversed a murder conviction because of Fogleman’s tactics.”

John Fogleman is not the first Fogleman to be involved in a horrible injustice. As a recent CNN article notes, a prominent African-American man named Isadore Banks was chained to a tree and burned to death by a group of white citizens of Marion, Arkansas, 50 years ago, when his father Julian was the city attorney and his uncle John was the prosecuting attorney. When asked if his brother or any other legal authorities conducted an inquest into the gruesome murder, Julian Fogleman said, “I can’t tell you if they did or they didn’t.” Nor does he have any explanation why he himself did not pursue justice in the case when he became prosecutor a few years later. When asked how he feels that the killers were never brought to justice, he says, “I don’t know what to think. It hasn’t happened, but why I don’t know, I just don’t know.”

Fifty people gathered in Marion recently to honor the memory of the murdered man and, after all these years, to seek some measure of justice. Many believe Julian Fogleman knows a lot more than he is telling. Many believe that he and his brother John, who went on to become Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, stood by silently while the guilty men were never brought to justice for the “lynching” of an innocent man.

Now, 50 years later, his son John Fogleman aspires to the highest judicial position in the state, where he would be responsible for dispensing the ultimate justice in cases that come before the court.

Based upon his actions during and after the convictions of Damien, Jessie and Jason, we can be sure that John Fogleman, like his father and uncle before him, cannot be expected to seek justice. He just wouldn’t know what “to think.”

Lonnie Soury

Damien Echols has begun writing letters that will be posted regularly on www.westmemphis3.org. They will serve as a way for him to communicate with his supporters. He is excited to have an outlet where he can share his life and reach out to all who have been supporting him and writing him letters over these past sixteen years.

His letters involve daily musings, informative and distressing anecdotes of prison conditions, as well as personal stories and responses to supporters’ questions and concerns.

Dear Friends,

I have an idea that you may be interested in. There’s simply no way that I can correspond with everyone, it’s not physically possible. It takes me an average of four hours to write a single letter, if it’s to contain anything of meaning or value. If I did nothing but dedicate every waking moment to writing letters I’d still only be able to complete three a day. I don’t want people to think their letters to me are wasted time, or that I don’t appreciate them, because that is not the case. I love receiving your letters. I look forward to them every single day. So, my idea is this – what if I were to respond this way? You could ask questions, propose topics, or tell me stories, and I could respond. We could make it an on-going project.

What I’d like to do is make it meaningful, an open dialogue that goes beyond the case. Most people see me as this case, and see this case as me. I’m not this case. Nor am I the “WM3.” To be perfectly honest, those things play very little role in my life. This project would be about us — about you and me and what makes us who we are.

One of the things I’d really like to hear about is your life’s purpose. Do you know what your life’s purpose is, or are you still looking for it? I’ve been thinking about this lately because I have several friends who seem to constantly be falling into states of despair and depression because they have no idea what they want to do with themselves. That’s a very alien concept for me, because I think I’ve always had some sort of internal compass that pointed out the way for me. I want to know your passion, your reason for being. I want to know what causes you to spring out of bed in the morning, happy to be alive. I want to hear about what brings you close to God.

Okay, that’s it for now. Talk to you soon.

Yours,

D

Damien’s letters are both uplifting and disturbing. In his letter posted on February 9, 2010, he writes of the psychologically and emotionally torturous life on death row. “The outside world is always curious about what it’s like when someone is executed. There’s no way to describe it, but it’s something I’ll never forget even if I live a thousand years. What will haunt me the most is the way the guards and administration react: They get excited. They get off on it. When they know they’re going to kill someone they act like kids on Christmas Eve. And if the execution is called off for some reason, they are furious – as if their favorite toy has been taken away. If they don’t get to kill the guy who was scheduled for execution, they come in and take it out on everyone else. It’s almost as if they expect you to give up and just let them kill you — and are outraged when this doesn’t happen.”

Damien also expresses his spiritual side which he credits as the force which keeps him alive. “I experience the Divine in my life on a daily basis. For me, effort is far more important than belief, and the effort I put forth is to spend every single moment of my life in the presence of the Divine. Lately I’ve been seeing more and more how blessed I really am.”

Damien’s letters touch on a diversity of topics, including health care in prison, prison labor, spirituality, holidays within the prison system, food, guard abuses, and how he survives as an innocent man on Arkansas’s death row.

Lonnie Soury, Arkansas Take Action

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.westmemphis3.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.westmemphis3.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