Arkansas Blog: Don't confuse him with the facts -- UPDATE

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has made it clear he's not open to reason in the case of the West Memphis Three convictions. Not surprising. The necktie party built on bogus Satan hysteria that led to their convictions was deeply rooted in the Northeast Arkansas legal establishment from which he sprang. Friends and allies were part and parcel of it.

But he offered a straw man argument yesterday. Nobody directly invovled in the case has said DNA evidence exonerates anyone. But they have said new inspection finds not a speck of DNA from the convicts at the crime scene, but unexplained DNA from unknown others. It's a significant development and important, had it been available at trial, in the standard of proof necessary for a conviction. Disappointing. Not surprising.

UPDATE: Dustin McDaniel responds with vigor. Read it on the jump, in its entirety. (My expert says he's confused about simple facts. There's a confession by Misskelley in the record -- much challenged by defenders -- but not by Baldwin and Echols.)

UPDATE II: There's a feud brewing over money raised for the WM3 defense.

FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL DUSTIN MCDANIEL

I read your blog entry. It is not accurate for you to suggest that I am not open minded or interested in facts. I said very clearly in today’s paper that if anyone presented me with compelling scientific evidence of their actual innocence, I would lead the charge to the Governor’s door seeking pardons. No such evidence exists, and it is a complete falsehood to suggest otherwise. There has been new DNA testing of old evidence, but it does not get close to exonerating the defendants. Furthermore, it does not inculpate anyone else. A very small hair in a child’s shoelace that does not exclude (nor definitively identify) his step father is the crux of the “new DNA evidence.” I hugged my daughter when I dropped her off at school. It is very possible that my hair could now be found on her scarf. Most parents can understand that. The other hair that has been recently tested was found in the area of the crime scene (not on any one of the bodies) 30 days after the bodies had been recovered. This was, of course after press, police, and dozens of people had been there. That hair did not exclude, nor did it positively identify, a man who was part of the search party with many others looking for the bodies. That’s it. That is the extent of the “new DNA evidence” we have now. There may be more to come, and I will be very open-minded to anything that comes in.

It is not insignificant, however, that Echols and Baldwin both confessed to the murders more than once each to multiple people in compelling detail. Echols described the mutilation to detectives before that information was publicly released. Echols parents had him institutionalized because they were afraid not only that he was going to kill them, but the other children in the house. Echols was linked to the crime scene by fiber evidence from his clothes. Baldwin, more than once and without leading questions or coaxing from police, described in detail how they removed the skin from Christopher Byers’ penis and scrotum, sucked the blood from the little boy’s penis and scrotum, swallowed his testicles and watched him bleed to death.

Do you really think they were convicted because they wore black? Do you think their confessions, the knife that matched the wounds, their unique knowledge of the crime, the fiber evidence, and the eye witnesses who saw them near the scene at the time of the murders should be ignored (then or now)?

Logic is out the window for those who are obsessed with this case, but I am driven only by facts, evidence and justice. I had no part in prosecuting these defendants, and I would have not one minute’s hesitation in leading the charge to release any wrongfully convicted person. However, simply because a website says someone is wrongfully convicted does not make it so. Simply because a defense lawyer (which I once was myself) insists, “my client is innocent,” does not make it so.

You said I am not open to facts. The only ones twisting the facts are those who say the following: “new DNA evidence proves innocence of WM3.” That is a completely dishonest statement. I wish that conclusive DNA evidence one way or the other did exist. However, without it, the totality of the evidence that was considered by the jury must be given weight.

I only offer this in defense of the many honest, honorable people who are working on this case. They are open minded, justice minded and diligent.

Sincerely,

Dustin

Dustin McDaniel

Arkansas Attorney General

Comments

Being open to reason requires the ability to reason. I don't think anyone has ever confused our attorney general with a legal scholar or even a person of above average intelligence. I'm sure his "reasoning," such as it is, consists of a consideration of the fact that it will be easier to run for governor in 2014 if he's touch on Satan-loving murderers of little boys, even if they didn't really do it. McDaniel's merely borrowing from the Mike Beebe playbook.

This case sort of reminds me of a case on which NPR reported last summer that arose in New Jersey. Larry Peterson was charged with rape and murder and wrongfully convicted, spending 17 years in prison before he was finally allowed to go free. He was convicted on the basis of hair found at the scene that was consistent with his own under microscopic examination. DNA testing performed post-conviction found that the hair was actually the victim's, meaning that no evidence tied the accused to the murder scene. His sentence was eventually vacated. You can read NPR's story by clicking my name.

Of course, Larry Peterson's case provides a note of caution for the men wrongfully convicted in West Memphis: after Peterson's sentence was vacated, "public servants" decided to retry him, despite the lack of any physical evidence. That attempt eventually failed because their key witness recanted his testimony, but it prolonged Peterson's ordeal. Should the West Memphis Three manage to obtain a reversal of their conviction, I'm sure some McDaniel-type will be looking to reprosecute them.

Posted by: Gaddis | January 17, 2008 08:45 AM

Maybe you can find out:
Why did KATV disable comments on this story? I only read their online version, and almost every story has a comment section. Not the case with the WM3 story today.

Anyone know why?

Posted by: calmwriter | January 17, 2008 08:49 AM

McDaniel shows his true colors by *assuming* there is no new evidence. I'm not 100% convinced that the WM3 are innocent, but I'd err on the side of their supporters. There is so much evidence to support a review of the case. DM is simply postering for the support of NEA duck-huntin', gay hatin' DINO's in 2010, justice be damned.

Glad I voted for Rebekkah Kennedy in 2006 ;)

Posted by: Ms_Haley_1965 | January 17, 2008 09:53 AM

The WM3 have no political moxie and a very small following among voters. Their supporters arguing to reopen the investigation have about as much local support as pornographers arguing for their First Amendment rights before an Arkansas jury. On the other hand, local judges, prosecutors, and cops are a significant part of McDaniel's political base in the First Congressional District. Politically, it was a no-brainer. Much like our affable Attorney General.

Posted by: Cassandra | January 17, 2008 11:57 AM

Methinks Gen. McDaniel protests too much. And in the process of doing so, says this:

"Baldwin, more than once and without leading questions or coaxing from police, described in detail how they removed the skin from Christopher Byers' penis and scrotum, sucked the blood from the little boy's penis and scrotum, swallowed his testicles and watched him bleed to death."

But the general doesn't address the fact that DNA eventually found on Christopher's penis could NOT have come from any of the WM3. The jury never knew that, of course, since today's DNA technology did not exist back then.

Gen. McDaniel also fails to address the fact that there was NO identifiable DNA at the crime scene that came from ANY of the WM3. One would think the general would want to explore these revelations to the depths.

Posted by: durangokid | January 17, 2008 04:43 PM

Did the chrome-domed AG actually make a reference to his hair in that response? I hope he didn't lose too much more of it when he hugged his daughter.

At any rate, I think the AG might be setting the bar a little too high when he requests "scientific evidence of their actual innocence." That would essentially be proving a negative. The absence of physical evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that these three men committed those murders is a different standard altogether. It's extremely hard to believe that such gruesome, extensive mutilation could have been undertaken by murderers who managed not to leave a trace of DNA at the scene. We might not ever see proof "of their actual innocence," but it's hard to believe that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

On another matter, it's a bit troubling that the AG would make an extended complaint about criticisms without actually getting the facts straight (or, less generously, simply made up facts to suit his argument). You'd think someone with that many staffers would be able to round up the facts.

Posted by: Gaddis | January 17, 2008 05:10 PM

YES we are so child-friendly - the 2 boys on the tracks in Saline Co., Janie Ward, the 2 boys who drowned (at Lake Hamilton, or Ouachita), the girl who died at the Alexander? facility, and the entire debacle of "privatizing" it, preceded by YEARS of lawsuits by advocates re Child & Family Services...fast forward to the gayDar in the foster children program... These are the ones I could just type from memory w/NO research.

Didn't this guy "originate" in Jonesboro, where they can't quite grasp the Wiccans (Devil worshippers easier for the dimwitted "christians"), then the Ledge? 'nuff said?

Posted by: Larry | January 17, 2008 06:47 PM

I have followed this case from the beginning. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone state that Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols confessed. Maybe Mara Leveritt can weigh in here, she examined all the evidence (or Lack Of Evidence).
Dustin McDaniel better go back to school on this one.

Posted by: BlueRidge | January 17, 2008 07:17 PM

AG McDaniel has seriously gone way too far. I mean, at least get your facts straight! And I love how we (supporters) are all morons who are led around by a stupid website that tells us these men are innocent. What the heck?! Let's see, how many innacurrate "facts" can everyone else come up with in McDaniel's response? I found 12! He should really consult someone before making statements as off the mark as these!

Posted by: RMARTIN | January 26, 2008 10:15 PM

I hope you will delete the comments that I wrote here last night about meeting with the AG this week. No need to play our hand yet. Thanks.

Posted by: amitayus | January 27, 2008 11:01 AM

Arkansas Blog

Don't confuse him with the facts -- UPDATE

Comments

Post a comment