WM3: Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled for September
Tuesday August 12, 2008
On September 8, a judge will begin hearing more information in the case of the West Memphis Three. For the first time, appeals from all three defendants -- Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Miskelley -- will all be heard at the same time. Each of the three men who were convicted in the murder of three young boys fifteen years ago will be allowed to present their case. New evidence will be introduced, including DNA evidence that invalidates claims made in the original investigation.
Judge David Burnett will be presiding over the hearing, which should take about three weeks. You may recall Burnett saying publicly back in April that he wanted to see the case wrapped up quickly. Burnett presided over the original trials back in 1994.
Interestingly, over the years public perception of the case has shifted. Many people who adamantly supported the original convictions have since changed their minds, or at least questioned the accuracy of the so-called evidence presented in 1994. Pam Hobbs, mother of Stevie Branch, one of the murdered boys, has said she no longer believes that Echols and the others killed her son. Mark Byers, whose son Christopher was also a victim, was an outspoken man who made the talk show circuit for years after the trials, frequently saying that Echols, Miskelley and Baldwin deserved to die for what they did to his son -- but now, even he isn't so sure. In fact, he issued a public apology to the Three last year, and has said he supports them a hundred percent, believing them to be innocent.
Over the next few weeks, actual scientific evidence will be shown to the court, rather than a bunch of anxious and frightened people rushing to get a conviction. There will be no "Satanic panic" experts, no circus acts from people who claim that kids in black coats are automatically killers. Instead, there will be DNA results, forensic analysts, and actual logic and facts. Only a few people in this world know the truth about who killed Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore that day in the woods. However, with this new trial, we may just find out for sure whether it was the men who have spent half their lives in prison, or whether they have served their time unjustly.
Judge David Burnett will be presiding over the hearing, which should take about three weeks. You may recall Burnett saying publicly back in April that he wanted to see the case wrapped up quickly. Burnett presided over the original trials back in 1994.
Interestingly, over the years public perception of the case has shifted. Many people who adamantly supported the original convictions have since changed their minds, or at least questioned the accuracy of the so-called evidence presented in 1994. Pam Hobbs, mother of Stevie Branch, one of the murdered boys, has said she no longer believes that Echols and the others killed her son. Mark Byers, whose son Christopher was also a victim, was an outspoken man who made the talk show circuit for years after the trials, frequently saying that Echols, Miskelley and Baldwin deserved to die for what they did to his son -- but now, even he isn't so sure. In fact, he issued a public apology to the Three last year, and has said he supports them a hundred percent, believing them to be innocent.
Over the next few weeks, actual scientific evidence will be shown to the court, rather than a bunch of anxious and frightened people rushing to get a conviction. There will be no "Satanic panic" experts, no circus acts from people who claim that kids in black coats are automatically killers. Instead, there will be DNA results, forensic analysts, and actual logic and facts. Only a few people in this world know the truth about who killed Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore that day in the woods. However, with this new trial, we may just find out for sure whether it was the men who have spent half their lives in prison, or whether they have served their time unjustly.
Comments
**Instead, there will be DNA results, forensic **analysts, and actual logic and facts.**
Isn’t THIS what they should have based their so-called conviction on in the first place???
Well, yeah, *should have* being the operative phrase. Unfortunately, it was a freakin’ carnival, with mail-order “experts” on Satanism coming in and announcing that kids dressed like Damien Echols clearly had to be child killers.
People were hasty to judge, and in a big hurry to find someone to blame in order to pacify a rural community which was panicking. Because of that, these guys have spent nearly half their lives in jail for something that they may not have even done. It worries me a bit that the same judge is on the case, because I’m wondering if he might have a bias towards them — then again, their attorneys don’t seem to have objected, so far be it for me to question.
I hope that facts rather than emotion allow these guys to get the fair trial they were entitled to 15 years ago but never got.
patti
They call it a “justice system”.
But how is there any jusice in convicting three people of a crime,and sending them to prison for half of their lives based on pasifying a community, on emotional knee-jerk reaction,or anthing other than the cold, hard facts?
If they are indeed innocent this is a terrible travesty of justice.
I agree with PhoenixWindwalker.
I’ve recently suffered a felony conviction on a crime (non-violent/non-malicious driving-related) that I had no idea I was committing. (DWLSR-Suspended License)
When brought to fact in court, that i had no knowledge i was committing a crime at the time of the offense, the State Attorney simply shrugged it off and stated, “The Letter Was Mailed.”
So what, mail doesn’t get lost or stolen?
The judge didn’t see it that way, and now i’m suffering probation, an increased suspension on my license(5 years), and a huge fine for it. (I also spent the night in jail on the date of the offense, missing my Father’s 50th Birthday Celebration)
They got a real ‘hardened criminal’ that night.
I believe that the American Justice System desperately needs some improvements. Even today in 2008.
Why is the same Judge allowed to even be involved in this case? He screwed up the first time and now he is going to be allowed to protect his earlier conduct? He should be rplaced. I feel he is a bad judge.
I, too, hope they get a fair shot. I have been following this case for several years and I believe it was a terrible travesty of justice! After seeing some of the “evidence” that was presented originally (how they dressed, the music they listened to) I have to wonder how it is that I was never accused of murder..it’s a sorry state of affairs when being who you are and using your freedom of expression can contribute to making you a suspect of a terrible crime. I’d like to think we have progressed since then, but unfortunately I am not too sure. No one can give them back the time they have lost, but at the very least they deserve a fair trial.
Fortunately, what should have been in the first place is finally getting done. But unfortunately, they have the same judge who will probably not listen to a thing they say.
I definitely hope he does, because those three men deserve a delicious slice of freedom.