Deal in works for the "West Memphis Three"

[LSN80]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/19/arkansas.child.killings/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin, dubbed the "West Memphis Three", will attend a hearing on Friday in Jonesboro, Arkansas, where they are likely to be free. After being tried and convicted for the murders of second-graders Steven Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers, Echols was sentenced to death, and Misskelley and Baldwin sentenced to life in prison. The bodies of the boys were found mutilated and in a ditch, hog-tied by their own shoelaces. Satanic rituals were argued by the prosecution as the motive for the slayings, with Echols presented as the ringleader. All three men have maintained their innocence throughout, and celebrities such as Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder and actor Johnny Depp have been petioning for their release. Why have they drawn such supporters, and how are they getting a possible reprieve, you ask?

Using new technology that wasn't available in 1993, the DNA of the three men were retested in 2005 and 2007. After such re-testing, DNA later failed to link the men to the crime, and the state Supreme Court ruled in November that all three could present new evidence to the trial court in an effort to clear them.
According to the Arkansas Supreme Court, the DNA tests were conducted between December 2005 and September 2007. Court documents revealed that the material found at the scene were hairs, one recovered from a tree stump near where the bodies were found, and a hair from a ligature used to restrain one of the boys.When said hairs were retested on both occasions, they werent found to be a match to any of the three men. New eye-witness testimony has also been presented that contradicts the previous descriptions of the men. The verdict is expected to be overturned, and the men released, but on one condition. A source close to the case from the DA's office has said the following:

"The deal involves a legal maneuver in which the three men would have to acknowledge that the state has evidence it could use to try and convict them for the same crimes, with the similar sentences," the source said.

The parents of the murdered boys are at odds over the possibility of the verdict being overturned. John Mark Byers, the father of Christopher, one of the murdered boys, said the following:

"I believe the three men are innocent. Releasing them without exonerating them of the crime is an outrage.They're innocent. They did not kill my son".

"I don't know what kind of deal they worked up," Steve Branch told CNN affiliate WMC-TV. "Now you can get some movie stars and a little bit of money behind you and you can walk free for killing somebody."

I can understand both mens point of view. I understand how Mr. Branch likely was given some closure due to the conviction and sentences of the three men, and the possibility of them being released likely rips open new wounds. The possibility of the killers still being out there is probably a terrifying thought. But I agree with Mr. Byers take on the situation. Like with Casey Anthony, Id rather err on the side of caution when there's no DNA evidence to support that the three men were the killers. The just thing to do is to release the three men, given that both DNA evidence and eye witness testimony contradicts earlier evidence that the three men were guilty. Better they be free due to the "reasonable doubt" then executed or serving life sentences for crimes they likely didnt commit. But as always, this raises some interesting questions:

If you were the parent of one of the three slain boys, how would you feel about his convicted "killers" being set free?

Do you support the decision to let the men go free?

Thoughts on the agreement that the "Double Jeopardy" rule won't apply here, and the men can be tried a second time if evidence arises that they're guilty?

All other thoughts on this story are welcome. Looking forward to some interesting discussion here. ill update the story when I know more.

Update: The three men have officially been released, but the verdict hasn't been overturned, which means the Double Jeopardy rule won't apply here. If new evidence is found, they can be tried again for the same crimes. The men entered what's known as the Alford plea, which means they were sentenced for time served, but can be returned to jail for 10 years if they commit another crime.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I am an attorney but I don't practice criminal law.


I haven't heard much about this story but this is very interesting. Thanks for posting.

I find it hard to believe that the the state required them to waive their double-jeopardy rights. I want to read more of the facts to find out exactly what the specifics are. Seems very unconstitutional to me, on the surface.

If DNA evidence exonerates them, I have no problem setting them free.

If I were in the position of the parents of the murdered kid, I wouldn't have a problem with this, based on the new DNA evidence. Why should these kids suffer?


Instances like this really make you think about the death penalty. There are documented instances of people that have been executed and then DNA evidence (after the fact) shows that they did not commit the crime. That could have been the case here if the one kid had been executed.

Now, there are certainly the cynics that are going to argue just for the sake of arguing. If you're going to say that DNA evidence isn't the only evidence (in other words, just because their DNA doesn't match, doesn't mean they didn't do it) then you can't use the opposite argument and say that if DNA does match, it means they did it.

DNA evidence is not "junk science." If the hair doesn't match, it's not the hair from these kids. If blood doesn't match, it's not from them.

I guess one could argue that it simply means that, that evidence doesn't tie them to the crime but other evidence does (that's likely what the state is doing; they may have or be in the process of obtaining "new" evidence).

 

[H33LTurn]

Its just common sense. You cant kill or sentence someone to life in jail with conflicting evidence. And its not only eye witnesses that contradict the initial verdict but DNA evidence as well. We've seen plenty of times how DNA has allowed innocent people who have wasted years in jail to regain their freedom. I do like the condition that if they find evidence that once again indicates that the men killed those kids then they are tried again. Since there are conflicting reports then its only in the best interest of the case to have that condition in place. If I was one of the parents of the kids i wouldnt take it out on the three men. If theres evidence that says otherwise then I would be open to it.

I'm just curious, why would three guys want to kill a couple of second graders?

 

[Kenny Powers]

First off, I'm glad that these three men were finally set free. I know they weren't exonerated since they had to plead guilty in order to receive their freedom. I watched the original Paradise Lost documentary as a teenager in 1996 when it aired on HBO. I watched the sequel that was released in 1999 only last year. You would be amazed to see how this whole trial was basically a Salem witch hunt. Because these three teenagers wore black, listened to Metallica, and got in some trouble with the police they were automatically tried as adults for a murder they had nothing to do with.

There was no evidence to convict them. Some people at a local fast food restaurant saw a man in the bathroom with blood all over him the night of the murders and didn't report it. They found a knife in the river behind the house of one of the men accused. There was no DNA evidence that linked them to the crime, and there was even some false testimony used by the prosecution.


If you were the parent of one of the three slain boys, how would you feel about his convicted "killers" being set free?

I think a lot of the parents at that time were just looking for justice. Those three teenagers fit the bill of criminals because they looked the part so they were just happy to get justice. John Mark Byers was the most adamant against the three boys, but later changed his tune a few years ago and is supporting that the boys be set free. Of course in the second Paradise Lost movie, the documentary made it look like John Mark Byers was the one guilty of killing the three boys.


Do you support the decision to let the men go free?

I completely support the decision to the let the men go free. They were wrongly accused and convicted of a crime with no evidence to convict them. Now there is new DNA information that puts one of the boys father's and his friends at the scene of the crime. If this evidence is true and the statements that the Branch boy's father was abusive, then this is a huge slap in the face to the justice system. West Memphis Arkansas must have Mayberry Police.

The three men accused of the crime have had a lot of support from a lot of people and even bigger stars like Johnny Depp, Natalie Maines, Eddie Vedder, and even Marilyn Manson. I believe Damien was even married in prison.

Thoughts on the agreement that the "Double Jeopardy" rule won't apply here, and the men can be tried a second time if evidence arises that they're guilty?

It looks like with their plea that the case is closed, which is strange considering that two of the three men had life sentences without parole and Damien was sentenced to death row. I guess the court system there didn't want to look like a bigger joke then it already is. If there is significant DNA evidence to link one of boy's father to the crime then they should reopen the case and finally get justice for the senseless crime that occurred 18 years ago.