Damien Echols (West Memphis 3) denied new hearing

[Juustin]

I'm not sure if anyone is still following this case. As of September 11, the judge denied a new trial for Damien Echols based on new DNA tests performed on evidence found at the crime scene.

From what I've read, the new DNA evidence recovered showed that it was mainly from the victims, yet some did not match the victims or any of the three who have been convicted.

In his appeal, Echols argued that newly analyzed DNA found no trace of him, Misskelley or Baldwin at the crime scene. But Burnett said he agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the absence of DNA didn't equal innocence.

"Proof of actual innocence requires more than his exclusion as the source of a handful of biological material that is not dispositive of the identity of a killer," Burnett wrote.

Story: http://www.wm3.org/live/newsevents/newsitem.php?index=1&news_Id=211

I'm not a lawyer, and while I realize that "absense of DNA doesn't equal innocence", it sounds like the defendants are expected to prove a negative.

Sometimes the legal system scares me.

 

[billydkid]

These are the Robin Hood Hills guys, right? That whole thing is a horrifying example of the occasional insanity of the American judicial system and the kind of hysteria that religion fosters. The most terrifying words in the English language - Trial by jury.

 

[applecorped]

These are the Robin Hood Hills guys, right? That whole thing is a horrifying example of the occasional insanity of the American judicial system and the kind of hysteria that religion fosters. The most terrifying words in the English language - Trial by jury.

What would you replace it with?

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, he can't get a new trial to prove his innocence because he can't, before the trial, prove his innocence?

 

[RadioactiveMan]

I'm not a lawyer, and while I realize that "absense of DNA doesn't equal innocence", it sounds like the defendants are expected to prove a negative.

Sometimes the legal system scares me.

After a trial it is very difficult to get a new one. Judges give great amounts of deference to a jury verdict.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

What a horrible and unbelievable miscarriage of justice.

They had an "expert witness" testifying who got his "degree" by mail. The most probable killer practically confessing on camera. A confession coerced from a mentally ill teenager. No physical evidence, no motive, no murder weapon linking the kids to the murders.

What more do you need?

 

[Aoidoi]

IANAL, etc.

I don't know anything about this case, but I'm pretty sure the legal argument in question is because they've been convicted by a jury, so the presumption of innocence is over. They've been "proven guilty" so to speak. Once convicted, the default assumption is that you're guilty, and something has to come up either calling into question the fairness of the trial or actual evidence of innocence to overcome that assumption.

As I understand it the reasoning for this is to provide some sort of finality to verdicts. Retrying cases because of something that's not clearly exculpatory would potentially result in absurd numbers of retrials as lawyers keep refiling with whatever "new" evidence they can locate until they get a jury that agrees with them. It's not like prisoners lack for time to come up with reasons to appeal. It could gridlock the system... more than it is now.

Of course, the continued functioning of the legal system doesn't exactly provide comfort to those which the system screws. The thread consensus seems to be the original trial was deeply flawed, which seems a better argument for an appeal than the DNA evidence.

Again, I dunno anything about it, and it certainly sounds like a bad verdict from the comments in the thread, but unless there was a certainty that their DNA would have been found at the scene (i.e. in a rape case) then it seems like that's not really enough to prove they weren't there. Just because their DNA wasn't in those particular samples, doesn't mean it wasn't elsewhere, etc. So I can see the legal argument, even if it doesn't match up with justice.

 

[Juustin]

Yeah. The legal system is definitely complicated, and I'm not going to even pretend I understand the long and the short of it.

One thing has struck me about this case, and I'll say right up front that evidence wise, it means nothing. However, I've noticed that almost everyone involved in the original trial, with the exception of the prosecutor, seems to be expressing doubt. Witnesses who were used by the prosecution say they were coerced into giving false testimony. Even a good amount of the victims' parents have expressed either serious doubt over the convicted being truly guilty, or have said outright that they no longer believe they did it in light of the evidence.

It seems like it's become a PR mess, at least you'd think so. Mark Byers, who himself looked rather guility and was going around talking about how much he hated the three defendants for killing the boys (mainly his stepson) for 14 years, is now giving interviews saying he has seen evidence that has made him realize the defendants are innocent.

Now the big question... If Echols exhausts his appeals and ends up being executed, does anyone else see this trial becoming a central point of every death penalty argument?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Now the big question... If Echols exhausts his appeals and ends up being executed, does anyone else see this trial becoming a central point of every death penalty argument?

Sadly, no, I don't. I don't really see it happening that way. This might not be the best example to use but Sacco and Vanzetti were executed for a crime they very well might have had nothing to do with in a case that was much more famous in its day than the West Memphis 3 ever was and they aren't trotted out as an argument against the death penalty.

Allthough it inspires controversy and speculation to this day, it's not exactly a shame of a nation that everyone arguing against the death penalty can instantly point to. Neither are the Rosenbergs, Mumia, Caryl Chessman, Barbara Graham, Troy Davis or any other cause celebre of its day.

There's really no one I can think of among arguably innocent people that has become a martyr for the death penalty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What would you replace it with?

Still trial by jury but with a zillion fixes. Mainly I would have the courts provide reliable science and not leave it up to the defense and prosecution who simply pay for a favorable opinion. And I would eliminate the process of dismissing jurors who have any expertise on anything related to the evidence.

 

[lionking]

I have watched the documentary about this case a couple of times, and also have looked at quite a few web sites devoted to it. I agree with others that after the trial it is terribly hard to get a conviction overturned and that near certainty rather than reasonable doubt is the measure applied. That said, there were some extremely dubious pieces of evidence admitted by the trial judge (the "evidence" by the unqualified expert witness mentioned previously is just one example). I really don't think a conviction would have happened in other (dare I say it) more sophisticated jurisdictions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At least The Innocence project is aware of the case. Just hope they have people working on it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sadly, no, I don't. I don't really see it happening that way. This might not be the best example to use but Sacco and Vanzetti were executed for a crime they very well might have had nothing to do with in a case that was much more famous in its day than the West Memphis 3 ever was and they aren't trotted out as an argument against the death penalty.

Yes, they are.

Although from what I've read, modern historians somewhat agree that Sacco was innocent but Vanzetti guilty. Or the other way around.

Fact is, society tends to forget people. There's that guy who was executed for killing his family by arson because the expert knowledge at the time was that fires don't spread a certain way unless artificially assisted. Years later, it's known that they can and do. Whoops! But that's a depressing story, and the guy is long dead, so who cares?

 

[luchog]

I'm not sure if anyone is still following this case. As of September 11, the judge denied a new trial for Damien Echols based on new DNA tests performed on evidence found at the crime scene.

Been following this since it happened. The whole thing is a huge travesty of justice.

 

[luchog]

Again, I dunno anything about it, and it certainly sounds like a bad verdict from the comments in the thread, but unless there was a certainty that their DNA would have been found at the scene (i.e. in a rape case) then it seems like that's not really enough to prove they weren't there. Just because their DNA wasn't in those particular samples, doesn't mean it wasn't elsewhere, etc. So I can see the legal argument, even if it doesn't match up with justice.

The legal argument doesn't pan out either. It's not a matter of their DNA not being found at the site; it's a matter of unidentified DNA being found at the site, and that DNA profile not matching any of the three convicted suspects. So by that measure, it is potentially exculpatory evidence; particularly if it matches the fourth, un-considered suspect, who was more closely linked to the murders than the WM3.

 

[Aoidoi]

The legal argument doesn't pan out either. It's not a matter of their DNA not being found at the site; it's a matter of unidentified DNA being found at the site, and that DNA profile not matching any of the three convicted suspects. So by that measure, it is potentially exculpatory evidence; particularly if it matches the fourth, un-considered suspect, who was more closely linked to the murders than the WM3.

Unless they've actually matched it to another suspect I'm not sure how that's exculpatory. Just because someone else's DNA is there doesn't mean that person committed the crime, it could have been left before or after the crime (unless there's some additional evidence of the time it was deposited). If it matches another suspect then I could see how it'd be pretty interesting as an alternate theory of the crime (i.e. the other suspect had means, motive, and was physically present at the scene) and I'm not sure how that'd play out regarding a new trial.

But as it is it just means someone else's DNA was somewhere at the scene. It doesn't appear to prove anything regarding their guilt, though neither does it support their conviction. It would have been useful evidence at a trial to point out that there was no evidence of the defendant's presence and evidence someone else had been there, but it's not exactly hard and fast proof of innocence.

 

[Juustin]

There IS more to the DNA issue though. What was found at the scene was a hair from the stepfather of one of the boys, Terry Hobbs. It was embedded in the shoelaces of another one of the boys, which were used to hogtie him. Another hair was identified as belonging to a friend of Hobbs, who was with him on the day of the murders.

Hobbs and his wife (the boys mother) are now divorced, and she also has stated that she suspects her ex-husband might have been involved. After their divorce she also found her sons hunting knife (which she says he took with him everywhere) in her husband's drawer, on top of the fact that he was responsible for the boy the day of the murders, and didn't tell her that her son was missing until 5 hours later.