Did Texas Execute an Innocent? Will Arkansas Be Next?

Posted by BKisida | Arkansas, Politics | October 14, 2009

8 Comments

There is little consolation in the fact that Texas Governor Rick Perry is feeling political heat because he likely allowed an innocent man to be executed on his watch.  Cameron Todd Willingham was killed by lethal injection in Texas in 2004 for the alleged arson murder of his three daughters in 1991.  The fact that Governor Perry now faces a bit of turmoil represents little more than a smidgen of justice in a case fraught with problems.  I can’t imagine what it must have been like for Willingham to first lose his daughters, and then to be accused of murdering them and subsequently executed for the crime.  The New Yorker has an excellent story about this case that you can read here.  Part of me thinks that after that much turmoil, the lethal injection may have brought some peace to his anguish. The rest of me demands answers.  Perry, however, in the middle of a tough election, wants to cover it up.

Anyone who has been paying attention knows Arkansas has its own high-profile murder case that demands answers, and Governor Mike Beebe hasn’t done a thing to address the questions.  And he can’t claim ignorance.  On two separate occasions, back when he was attorney general and shortly after he became governor, I personally spoke with him about the so-called West Memphis Three.  He seemed to express genuine concern, but there has been zero action on his part, and the Attorney General’s office has actually been counter-productive.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, the West Memphis Three have been imprisoned since 1993 for the alleged murders of three eight year old boys. If you’re not familiar with the case, I wouldn’t know where to begin. I’ve followed it for nearly fifteen years, and the complex twists and turns that have evolved are still difficult for me to grasp.

I’ll provide a  very short synopsis, though it will fall short of the attention the case deserves. If you want to know more, I urge you to read Devil’s Knot by Arkansas author Mara Leveritt, or watch the full length documentaries, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hillsand Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, that have been produced by HBO about the case.  You can even watch them on youtube in pieces, beginning here. A very short blurb in a recent New York Times article also provides a brief summary. Fair warning, the story is quite disturbing.

In May of 1993, three eight year old boys were found murdered in the woods near West Memphis, Arkansas.  A mentally disabled teenager, Jesse Misskelly, after hours of police interrogations, confessed that he and two other teenagers had done the crime, despite gaping holes and inaccuracies in his confession.  Misskelly was sentenced to life in prison, as was another teenager, Jason Baldwin.  The third teenager, Damien Echols, currently sits on Arkansas’ death row, awaiting execution for the crime.

After Misskelly confessed, he recanted.  There was no physical evidence that linked any of the boys to the crime.  The courtroom testimony was full of guilt by association tactics in a small town struck by satanic panic.  For example, the teens had read books by Stephen King, and they listened to Metallica.  You have to remember, this was 1993, back when Metallica was some pretty scary shit to people in small town America.

All three of them maintain their innocence to this day.  Two of the murdered children’s parents also believe they are innocent. Millions of people around the world think they are innocent.

By any reasonable assessment they deserve a new trial.  Most recently, DNA evidence has failed to link any of them to the crime, and some of it points in a different direction entirely.  Additionally, the foreman of the jury in the original trial has admitted to misconduct, as he spoke to lawyers outside of the jury pool and admitted that because he felt the prosecution was not doing its job, a conviction would be up to him.

And, just last month, a witness for the prosecution from the original trial, Vicki Hutcheson, took the stand to say that in her original testimony back in 1993 she had been coerced into lying by the West Memphis Police Department.  The way this played out in court last month illustrates one of the biggest obstacles that stands in the way of justice in the West Memphis Three Case.  That obstacle is the judge who has presided over the case continually, Judge David Burnett.  His actions throughout the history of the case have been deplorable, and I can’t list them all here.  Mara Leveritt, only a few days ago, illustrated some of his latest shenanigans.

I am going to illustrate another. When Vicki Hutcheson attempted to speak the truth in a court of law in a murder trial, she was told by Burnett that she would be guilty of perjury because it would contradict her own testimony from 1993.  She requested immunity, which Burnett denied.

Now let’s get this straight.  Two men are serving life in prison sentences, and one is on death row.  If they are innocent, then not only have they lost the last 16 years of their lives, but the real murderer of three eight year old boys is free.  And what is Burnett’s concern in the midst of this? Making sure Vicki Hutcheson doesn’t get away with perjury?!

Wake up Governor Beebe.  This is happening on your watch.

Update: Here is a good breakdown of the most recent developments.

Riff Sharing:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • email

Comments (8)

[...] from:  Mid-Riffs » Blog Archive » Did Texas Execute an Innocent? Will … Share and [...]

Beebe has not only been silent on this issue. It seems like he has been silent on almost every issue. Quick, name his major education initiative. Try to name 3 things he’s done in office. How about 1. At least he isn’t nanny Huckabee, but that isn’t saying much.

I’ve long been amazed by the silence from state leaders.

The last time Beebe said anything at all about the case — December, 2007 — gives us a clue as to his stance:

Gov. Mike Beebe says he is not considering commuting or pardoning the three men convicted in the 1993 slaying of three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, despite recent efforts to free the men.

Beebe, speaking to reporters after an event Tuesday, said that Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley should go first to courts in seeking to either receive a new trial or win their freedom.

However, Beebe acknowledged that DNA evidence provides “a level of scientific certainty.” When asked if he was considered commuting or pardoning the three, Beebe said “No. Absolutely not.”

http://wm3.vox.com/library/post/beebe-says-no-clemency-planned-for-west-memphis-three.html

This is what the defense team’s expert, Thomas Fedor, had to say about this “level of scientific certainty:

Thomas Fedor: The two hairs that I know about – the one that could have in fact come from Mr. Hobbs and the one that could have in fact come from David Jacoby – constitute what I call weak evidence. Because there are other people it could have come from and there isn’t any way to really prove our selection of possible sources for that hair. I don’t think – my personal opinion – I don’t think that that hair evidence would be enough to convict Mr. Hobbs or Mr. Jacoby or anyone that would be in a similar situation because it’s simply not strong enough. The percentages I gave of people who could be the source of those hairs are 1.5% of the population in the respect to one hair and 7% in respect to the other hair. That’s not particularly strong evidence and especially in the context of what most people are accustomed to with DNA testing. These odds are considerably weaker than what we would call an STR DNA test that virtually provides a source.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Learn the truth…..
http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php

squirl, your argument is weak. It’s not the job of the 3 convicted men to prove who the real murderer(s) are, they are only required to prove their own innocence. IF the DNA evidence is weak against Hobbs and Jacoby, what is STRONG is that the 3 convicted men were not included in those percentages AT ALL.

Actually Pam….you are wrong. The three are possible donors of DNA which was collected at the crimes scene. (and I’m not even talking about the “hair”) but of course the defense team isn’t going to mention any of that…

but in answer to your response saying my argument is weak….it wasn’t “my argument” I simply quoted what the “defense team” had to say regarding the hair….since everyone seems to think that it belonged to Terry Hobbs.

…and you’re right….it’s not the defense team’s job to prove who did it….it was the prosecution’s job….and they did a great job! 12 jurors agreed ;)

Yes Stuart, the Texas one is a tough case, and like anything, there are two sides to it. Nevertheless, I still don’t understand why Governor Perry is afraid of a thorough investigation.