innocence claim from death row

This is an interesting case. It may be worth looking into deeper as a topic for future discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/022610-west-memphis-three-stepfather-calls-johnny-depp-out-of-line

Some background reading if anyone is interested. Middle one asserts conviction is wrong. Bottom one asserts conviction is proper.

OK now you've got me on a DP sentence I do not agree with at all. I watched the documentary on this case - it was very good, very shocking and they didn't really have any evidence on these kids except a confession, but that was most likely a false confession. One of the boy's fathers has even changed sides and now believes the boys are innocent. The West Memphis Three is a fascinating case. I am tending to be swayed by Echols now. I don't really know if he's really innocent, but I do know that he should have a new trial and that there was not sufficient evidence in the first one to convict.

Very interesting. Hope he gets a new trial. I would like the new evidence weighed if someone is sentenced to death.

OH my gosh didn't realize the hearing is tomorrow! Wish I could go to something like that. Hoping and praying for a good decision, one in light of searching for the truth.

I remembered after reading one of the links that there was jury misconduct in Damien's trial big time. On that alone, he must be offered a new trial in the name of justice.

http://arkansas-sc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=71

You can watch the arguments in the Arkansas Supreme Court. It was very interesting, mostly confusing. The justices sure asked a lot of questions directed towards the state's attorney. I get the feeling they may feel they want him to have a new trial, but it's statutory interpretation stuff which is horribly boring and confusing and which the bench typically stays neutral because they figure it's the legislature's job not theirs to make the laws. I hope he gets a new trial. The justices brought up the new DNA evidence along with the recantation of the confession and the juror misconduct. At least they know the case well.

I watched for a while. Wow appelate law is tough. The scary thing is they are debating what evidence was or was not available at the first trial interpretation of various statue etc. That is their job. We can all assume that a decision was made using the info available at the time. Was it a proper decision though?

The practical question though remains, is an innocent man on death row?

I watched a bunch of stuff about this case on you tube today...got a little obsessed. Regardless of the guilt or innocense these guys deserve a new trial. The admitting of the confession, the new evidence that's come to light with DNA testing and the hairs found at the crime scene as well as the LACK of evidence of either of the three at the crime scene - it just begs for a fresh look. Reasonable doubt I think, but I get the Satanic panic of the time and the small community made it near impossible for them to get a fair trial.

A CBS reporter felt like I did about that hearing in the Arkansas Supreme Court:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018300-504083.html

ziggy wrote:A CBS reporter felt like I did about that hearing in the Arkansas Supreme Court:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018300-504083.html

Exactly. This is a short article and sums it up perfectly. If you [speaking collectively to the forum participants] will read nothing else about this case today take 2 min and read this.