West Memphis 3 Press Conference
Damien Echols's defense team is going to be holding a press conference in about five minutes. You can tune in to a live webcast here.
UPDATE:
Here's what Echols' lawyers said: No jury in the world would convict Damien Echols today given the DNA and forensic evidence made available this week to federal court.
Lawyers for Echols, on death row for the 1993 slayings of three 8-year-old boys, filed a motion Monday showing that DNA evidence collected at the scene of the crime in West Memphis shows no link to Echols or the other two defendants in the case, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin, but could possibly be matched to Terry Hobbs, the step-father of one of the murdered boys.
The motion also includes statements by expert witnesses that that wounds on the boys’ bodies ― including the removal of one child’s genitals ― were not inflicted by knives but post-mortem by animals. Prosecutors in the case alleged the wounds were consistent with Satanic ritual (and who better to accuse of Satanic ritual than an 18-year-old who wore black T-shirts and called himself Damien?).
Dr. Werner Spitz, a leading forensic pathologist, said scratches on the bodies were clearly made by animals, and noted there were no stab wounds. He said it was unconscionable that the prosecution would tell the jury that a serrated knife founded “hidden” (the prosecution’s words) in a lake was used in the crime.
(Read on after the jump)
The press ― the majority from Memphis ― peppered lawyer Dennis Riordan and the experts with questions about the DNA evidence and the involvement of Hobbs. Former FBI special agent John Douglas said he would have put Hobbs on the front burner based on the circumstances of the crime ― which he said was mostly likely committed by a single adult who knew the area. But Riordan and others stressed that their task is to show the evidence convicting Echols was insufficient, not to solve the case.
The press conference was at the UALR Law School. Associate Dean John DiPippa said it met the criteria for public use.
Comments
Great job John C.
.
ARK BLOG: Credit where credit is due: Leslie Peacock went to the conference and did the write-up.
Posted by: eLwood![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2007 02:42 PM
Well! All I have to say is, too bad water boarding wasn't in effect then, we could have already had them tried, convicted, and executed. I am sure that some sort of cohersion was used to get Misskelley to say what was required. With someone of his capability, it would not be hard to get him to say anything. Not to mention the proscutor's flim flam.
Off the thread some, mcchimpy defended mulkasey's nomination for AG. His comment was that mulkassey should not be questioned about programs on which he had not been briefed. Meaning all mcchimpy needed to do to get his man through was immediatly disavow waterboarding, and state catagorically it was not authorized by his administration. That did not happen, meaning it is authorized and he wants it continued. Closer to home even our state, gave up the Tucker Telephone. How does it go, "thank gawd for Arkansas". And all you 25 percenters who still support mcchimpy just remember you support a man who authorizes a human to be tortured. Have a nice day!
Posted by: ArkansawTravler![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2007 02:46 PM
While I have ALWAYS questioned the conviction of these guys (I lived out of state for a few years I call the "black period"), it troubles me Werner Spitz was involved. He was plumb goofy testifying at the Phil Spector trial in California! Even some of the jurors in the trial (which hung 11-1 in favor of conviction) said publicly they believed he wasn't a credible witness. On the flip side, I've seen John Douglas several times and he seems to be straight-on.
Posted by: craighead gal![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2007 03:02 PM
Re expert witnesses, I believe the original conviction was obtained with the use of an "expert witness" from a little town in northwest Ohio who had a mail-order degree and was supposed to be an authority on satanic cults. You can't get less credible than that. The prosecutor who did this and the judge who allowed it should both be very ashamed.
Posted by: Vegan4Hillary![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2007 11:14 PM