Evidence Analysis

New - updated 2004

A point-by-point analysis of the evidence
by Chris Worthington

"Eleven." -- Gary Gitchell, West Memphis Police Chief of Detectives 
(when asked by the media before the trial to rate his department's case against Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley on a scale from one to ten.)

"There was a remarkable lack of physical evidence against anybody." -- Prosecutor John Fogleman
(when asked about the lack of physical evidence against the West Memphis Three - Phoenix Times, 11/14/96.)

"Yeah, I'm innocent." -- Jason Baldwin
(after being asked by the judge if he had anything to say at his sentencing.)

Who's right?

Decide for yourself. This site will take a critical look at the evidence which put -- and keeps --The West Memphis Three in prison for The Robin Hood Hills Murders. We will use The Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinions affirming their convictions as the source for that evidence. There will be no doctoring of how the Opinions describe the evidence, and none of what they mention directly involving Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, or Jessie Misskelley, Jr. will be omitted. We will examine the evidence the same way the juries at the original trials were supposed to. Is there any reason not to believe it? How relevant is it? Is it at all conclusive? In addition, we will consider whether information the juries were not allowed to hear and new evidence which has recently come to light might have changed their viewpoint. Excerpts from the Supreme Court Opinion will be represented in bold type. When we are finished, you can decide if there is a case against The West Memphis Three. This is a different way to think of this site. Most of the Free The WM3 website tries to explain the real reasons Damien was sentenced to death and Jason and Jessie to life in prison by Arkansas . . . Satanic panic . . .a rush to judgment . . . narrow-minded prejudice...

This page will show you how the prosecution got away with it....

PART I -- THE EVIDENCE AGAINST JESSIE MISSKELLEY, JR.

1) JESSIE MISSKELLEY'S CONFESSION

A) EVIDENCE JESSIE MISSKELLEY HAD CRIME KNOWLEDGE UNAVAILABLE TO PUBLIC
B) DAMIEN ECHOLS SPOTTED NEAR CRIME SCENE
C) EVIDENCE MISSKELLEY ATTENDED ESBATS WITH ACCOMPLICES
D) EVIDENCE ONE VICTIM HAD BEEN STALKED
E) JESSIE MISSKELLEY CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES BALDWIN'S CLOTHING
F) FIBER EVIDENCE LINKING ACCOMPLICES TO CRIME

The Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion in the Misskelley (A) case runs 24 pages, addressing

41 separate articles of appeal filed by Jessie's lawyers, Daniel Stidham and Gregory Crow. The majority of these appeals revolve around legal issues which are beyond the scope of this page. They include arguments under the categories of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Appeal and Error (referring to in-trial appeals), Search and Seizure, Witness Qualification, Constitutional Law, Juvenile Law -- Applicable Codes, and Jury Instruction. We can largely confine this survey to evidentiary appeals, especially the one relating to whether the verdict is supported by "substantial evidence," which the court defines as evidence which would have allowed the jury to reach its conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. This -- as opposed to the better known concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- is the standard by which appellate courts, at least in Arkansas, are guided in rendering their opinions. Many of the evidentiary appeals need not be discussed, as they merely mention in the context of larger legal issues evidence which is more fully developed elsewhere in the Opinion, or because they appeal in regards to evidence bearing upon alternate suspect to the crimes; or because they appeal in regards to evidence bearing upon Echols or Baldwin, whose case evidence will be covered in Part II.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the Court is not evaluating any of this evidence as to its worth or veracity -- they repeatedly remind readers that weighing evidence was solely the jury's job. The Court's only concern is whether these items of evidence were admitted properly and if they could have been of substantial aid to the jurors in the job of reaching their verdicts.

THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MATERIAL

It is during the Supreme Court's review of whether Judge Burnett was correct in not ordering a directed verdict of Not Guilty at the close of the state's case that the Opinion addresses the question of whether the state had met its burden of presenting "substantial evidence" of the defendant's guilt. Boldface type indicates the text is taken directly from the Opinion.

1) JESSIE MISSKELLEY'S CONFESSION
From pages 10-12 of the Misskelley Opinion, all contiguous: The statements [in Jessie Misskelley's confession] were the strongest evidence offered against the appellant at trial. In fact, they were virtually the only evidence, all other testimony and exhibits serving primarily as corroboration.

The statements were obtained in a question-and-answer format rather than in a

the events took place about 9:00 a.m. on May 5. Later in the statement, he changed that time to 12:00 noon. He admitted that his time periods might not be exactly right. He explained the presence of the young boys by saying they had skipped school that day.

The first tape recorded statement concluded at 3:18 p.m. At approximately 5:00 p.m., another statement was recorded. This time, the appellant said he, Echols and Baldwin had come to the Robin Hood area between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Upon prompting by the officer, he changed that to 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. He finally settled on saying that his group arrived at 6:00 p.m. while the victims arrived near dark. He went into further detail about the sexual molestation of the victims. At least one of the boys had been held by the head and ears while being accosted. Both the Byers boy and the Branch boy had been raped. All the boys, he said, were tied up with brown rope.

One of the interrogating officers later testified that his notes revealed the appellant told him he received a phone call from Baldwin on the night before the murders. Baldwin stated that they planned to go out and get some boys and hurt them.

The appellant's statements are a confusing amalgam of times and events. Numerous inconsistencies appear, the most obvious being the various times of day the murders took place. Additionally, the boys were not tied with rope, but with black and white shoe laces. It was also revealed that the victims had not skipped school on May 5.

Problems with the evidence: CREDIBILITY, EVIDENCE WITHHELD, NEW EVIDENCE REFUTES

As even the Arkansas Supreme Court admits, there are serious problems with this evidence. Jessie's statement lacks CREDIBILITY for a two-pronged reason. One, structural clues that it was not a sincere confession but rather the "coerced compliant" variety of a "false" confession (1), and, two, evidence its contents conflict with known facts, indicating it is not a credible source of information about the crimes it pertains to. For a thorough explanation of how Jessie may have came to give police a false confession, it is strongly recommended that you read his attorney Dan Stidham's Synopsis of the Case, found here. Here is a brief outline of support for its claim of false confession.

a) There is a pattern of intimidation

and threats evident in juvenile interrogations conducted by The West Memphis Police Department. A taste of the strong-arm tactics employed by WMPD Inspector Gary Gitchell against teenager Chris Littrell (identified by a pseudonym as Bob Loomis) is given by the book 'The Blood Of Innocents' (by Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia and Bartholomew Sullivan, published by Pinnacle Books, 1995) on page 150. The Commercial Appeal reported on July 17, 1994, that Kenneth Clyde Watkins, then 17, told private investigator Ron Lax that police browbeat him into saying Echols had confessed to him about killing the boys. (2) Buddy Sidney Lucas says police "yelled and screamed" until he falsely told them that Misskelley had admitted helping Echols and Baldwin hurt someone. (2)

b) Polygraph expert Warren Holmes' analysis of Jessie's test tapes indicate that Jessie was lied to about its results in order to scare him into confessing. This portion of his testimony was WITHHELD from the jury by Judge Burnett on the grounds that polygraph test results are not admissible evidence. He did however, offer the defense a compromise. He would allow them to tell jury that "Jessie Misskelley had been told he had failed a polygraph," as long as no other detail was added. (3)

c) The expert opinion of Dr. William E. Wilkins who, despite being under disciplinary review by the Arkansas Board of Examiners in Psychology was an accredited psychologist, testified that Jessie had an IQ of around 72 and had a highly suggestible personality. (4)

d) The expert opinion of Dr. Richard Ofshe, a professor of Social Psychology at Berkeley, that Jessie's confession was a coercive compliant confession. This, too, was WITHHELD from the jury. Judge Burnett ruled that the law allows no expert witness to testify about anything which "speaks to the core of the issue," which is whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. This is despite the fact that Ofshe had been allowed to offer similar testimony in other courts without the judges so ruling. Ofshe also pointed out many instances of coaching about the proper timing of events in the forty minutes of tape Jessie's statement is recorded on, as well as instances where he is coached about the identity of the victim who'd been emasculated, and attempted coaching about what materials were used to bind the victims. Nearly three hours of the interrogation which led to the taping

were never recorded. The errors of fact in Jessie's statement can also be used to support a claim that it is a false confession, but they are an issue unto themselves in regards to the CREDIBILITY the statement should be given. (1)

At the time of his 1994 trial, Jessie's statement conflicted with at least six known issues of fact:

a) Placing the victims and Jason Baldwin out of school at times they were demonstrably in school; (5)
b) Stating victims were bound with rope whereas they were found tied with their own shoelaces; (5)
c) Stating one boy was choked into unconsciousness with a stick whereas the medical examiner could detect nothing to indicate this; (5)
d) Stating boys were "screwed," implying anal rape, whereas medical examiner could find no signs of the expected anal abrasions or other evidence which would back this up; (5)
e) Describing traumatic beatings issued to the boys which would have left more sign of blood in the soil of reputed crime scene than tests ever indicated; (5)
f) Describing Chris Byers' emasculation as accomplished with a single swing of a knife whereas medical examiner testified it would take a great deal of precision and skill. (5)

Ironically, both Jessie and the medical examiner may turn out to be wrong about the last point. NEW EVIDENCE in the form of a Forensic Analysis and Psychological Profile by Forensic Scientist Brent Turvey, concludes the emasculation was a crude, imprecise act, yet one which was not accomplished with one swing of a blade. (6) This is only a tiny part of Turvey's findings, which represent the first truly independent scientific look by a qualified professional at the crime materials.

In Turvey's opinion, Robin Hood Hills Woods was only the "dump site" for a crime committed elsewhere, indicated only in part by:

a) The nature and extent of Chris Byers' wounds especially required adequate lighting conditions, time and privacy. From beginning to end crime would have taken two hours; (6)
b) The injuries on all boys would likely have resulted in great deal of screaming. If crime were committed when and where state proposed it was, then this noise, not to mention the span of time the crime required, would have been occurring during a time searchers were already in the woods looking for the boys; (6)
c) Lack of blood at dump site indicates assaults committed elsewhere;

(6)
d) Lack of mosquito bites on victims indicates they were no longer alive when bodies were taken to the stream for dumping. (6) Through forensic odontology, it might be possible to match a set of teeth to who made these bites. Jessie Misskelley never mentioned biting as part of the assault he witnessed or took part in.

Moreover, Turvey has created a psychological profile of the offender based, in part, on factors such as the following:

* Due to the sudden violent nature of the attack and the limited resistance displayed by the victims, it is likely the offender is someone they knew and trusted. (6)

* The likelihood that emasculation of one victim in particular has a "sexual meaning" to offender but not necessarily for sexual gratification. (6)

* The level of attention paid to victim's faces, in terms of depersonalization and rage, is further indicative of familiarity. (6)

* The "punishment orientation" of act, as opposed to being one of an erotic sexual nature. (6)

* The method would need access to a vehicle as means of transportation. (6)

Turvey's analysis casts grave doubt upon nearly every detail of Jessie Misskelley's confession, thereby impeaching nearly the entirety of the state's case against Jessie Misskelley, as well as the West Memphis Police Department's entire theory of the crime.

CORROBORATION OF MATERIALS IN CONFESSION

A) EVIDENCE JESSIE MISSKELLEY HAD CRIME KNOWLEDGE UNKNOWN TO PUBLIC

From page 12 of Misskelley Opinion, all contiguous: However, there were portions of the statements which were consistent with the evidence and were corroborated by the state's testimony and exhibits. The victims had been seen riding their bicycles.

Problem with the evidence: RELEVANCE

It was certainly no secret that the victims were last publicly seen riding their bicycles in vicinity of the woods May 5th. This is from the first article about the murders which appeared in The Commercial Appeal, May 7, 1993, written by Richard Kelley: "Neighbors last saw Weaver Elementary School second-graders Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore riding bicycles between 5:15 and 6PM Wednesday." (7)

The medical examiner testified that the boys had been severely beaten.

Problem: RELEVANCE

There is compelling evidence to believe that many, if not most, details about what condition the bodies were in when found were widely known by the time Jessie gave his statement June 3rd, 1993. By this time, most

of what the police knew about the deaths had been released to the press, and rumors were circling about what little was left out. The information released to the press that the boys were found in water could naturally lead to speculation the boys had drowned.  On the Saturday after the bodies were found, The Commercial Appeal reported on its front page that on Thursday, May 6th, Arkansas State Police radio had broadcast a report that the WMPD was "investigating the abduction and mutilation of three boys." (8) The WMPD have in the report on their May 10th, 1993 interview with 16-year-old high school student Chris Littrell his statement that he heard a rumor at a little after 5PM on the very day the bodies were found that "at least" one boy had been castrated. (9)

Moreover, it turns out Jessie Misskelley's next door neighbor and friend, Kevin Johnson, was a member of the Crittenden County Search and Rescue Squad, and in his courtroom testimony stated that not only did he hear at a meeting of his team that "one of the boys were beaten and cas[t]rated," as well as "they were tied with shoelaces," but that he also had a conversation with Jessie Misskelley in which he passed this information on. (10)

Two of them had injuries consistent with being hit by a large object. One of the boys had facial lacerations. The Byers boy had indeed been severely mutilated in the genital area.

Problems: CREDIBILITY, RELEVANCE

Jessie's apparent knowledge of Chris Byers' mutilation could easily have been attained by the same gossip process as outlined above. In fact, all three boys suffered blows to the head, not just two. (8) Misskelley states that Baldwin used a knife to cut "Stevie Branch" in the facial area. What is now theorized is that some of these "cuts" are in fact human bitemarks, not knife wounds, a fact which Dr. Peretti totally misjudged. (6)

All the boys had injuries which were consistent with rape and forced oral sex.

Problem: INCONCLUSIVE

This is a very misleading statement. What Dr. Peretti actually said (in both trials, in fact) was that conclusive evidence of sexual assault was absent. The anal dilation police had initially assumed meant the boys had been raped was explainable due to normal postmortem relaxation plus the fact that the bodies had

been submerged in water for several hours. (11) It is a measure of the WMPD's inexperience that no one on hand at the dump site realized this. The best the State could get Peretti to testify to was that it was possible that the boys may have been sexually assaulted without there being left behind any of the expected anal/rectal tissue damage extremely common in such cases. (11)

The issue of whether there is corroborative evidence that one or more of the boys were forced to perform oral sex is, frankly, less simple to resolve. The question is repeated to Dr. Peretti at the Echols/Baldwin trial, and as the Arkansas State Supreme Court's Echols/Baldwin Trial Opinion (B) goes into greater detail giving background about this issue, we will look at its text instead of the Misskelley Opinion.

From page 42 of Echols/Baldwin Opinion, all contiguous: Dr. Peretti testified that Michael Moore had injuries to the ears and the mouth and that he generally sees this type of injuries in children who are forced to perform oral sex. [However...] He also said that the injuries to the mouth could be caused by a punch or a slap. He noted that Steve Branch's injuries to his ears and mouth were similar to Michael Moore's, as were Christopher Byers'.

Despite this caveat, Dr. Peretti hedges his bets further still: On cross-examination, he testified that the boys could have the external injuries, with no internal injuries or presence of sperm, and still have been forced to perform oral sex. He opined that if the oral sex was forceful enough to cause the bruises to the outside of the mouth, he would expect that there would be bruising to the inside of the mouth as well. (11)

When asked to comment on what the evidence in this issue most clearly shows, Forensic Scientist Brent Turvey declined to answer on the grounds it breached the confidentiality of a client. However, he did offer one general comment about the pathology report Dr. Peretti had prepared and drew his comments from while testifying: "I will say this, however: that report you reference is completely without insight or foundation on the issue you reference. And "consistent with" is a term that means many things." (12)

It is obvious from Dr. Peretti's observations alone, whether they have any foundation or not, that ANY reference made by

the state at either trial that the boys had been sexually assaulted was purely conjecture based on highly inconclusive evidence and complicated by vague, leading language.

From page 12 of the Misskelley Opinion, all contiguous: There was evidence that drowning contributed to the deaths of the Moore and Branch boys, but not the Byers boy. This is consistent with the appellant's statement that the Byers boy was already dead when he left the scene.

Problem: RELEVANCE

Since when was Jessie Misskelley ever a licensed medical examiner, qualified to form an opinion about a time of death? All Jessie's statement really says when you extract opinion is that when he left Chris Byers was still on the bank.

The boys were in fact tied up, albeit with shoe laces rather than rope.

Problem: RELEVANCE

The general comments about all "insider knowledge" apply here. All that needs to be added is to say that the state never entirely got over the hurdle of clearing up the discrepancy between Jessie's description that rope had been used and the truth, which was that the boys' own shoe laces had been used (13) -- although the jury may have thought the state came close. Gary Gitchell testified that while at the dump site it looked to him like one of the binding marks on Chris Byers legs indicated to him by its appearance that he was tied with something other than a shoestring. (14) Defense objected on the ground that to allow Gitchell to testify to this was improper since he was not a qualified medical examiner, (and in fact, Dr. Peretti did not testify about any possible ligatures except shoelaces (11)). But Stidham and Crow were overruled by Judge Burnett, who said it was proper for a detective to give his professional impressions of a crime scene. (14)

B) DAMIEN ECHOLS SPOTTED NEAR CRIME SCENE

Damien Echols was observed near the crime scene at 9:30 p.m. on May 5. He was wearing black pants and a black shirt and his clothes were muddy.

Problem: CREDIBILITY

This statement is derived from the testimony of Tabitha Hollingsworth (15), and is in essence the same story her mother and brother would tell on the witness stand later in the Echols/Baldwin trial. As Tabitha was a minor child of Narlene Hollingsworth, it is fair to question whether she

was testifying under the influence of her mother, a woman with tremendous credibility issues which, along with Narlene's testimony, will be discussed in Part II.

C) EVIDENCE MISSKELLEY ATTENDED ESBATS WITH ACCOMPLICES

A witness testified that she had attended a satanic cult meeting with Echols and the appellant.

Problem: CREDIBILITY

This is derived from the testimony of Vicki Hutcheson (16), who claimed that approximately two weeks after the murders she decided to "play detective" and attend an "esbat" or cult meeting with Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley. This supposedly occurred in an empty field in Turrell, Arkansas. Interestingly, she claimed to have been driven their by Damien in his red Ford Fiesta. (16)  Damien had no driver's license and no car (17), nor did the state ever put on a witness who could demonstrate Damien had access through a friend or relative to a car of Vicki's description. For a complete synopsis of the MANY other credibility issues which be raised in regards to Vicki Hutcheson, including evidence she testified in hope of receiving a reward, and/or in the hopes of seeking consideration for criminal charges pending against her in another case, read Dan Stidham's case synopsis. (5) All that needs to be recapped here is the one most damaging issues which can ever be raised about a witness at a trial: Her own admission that what she was testifying to was probably not true, something she dreamed up after a night guzzling a couple of bottles of Wild Turkey and popping Prozac (on top of her regular doses of Xanax) stretched out on the grass of her front lawn (18) or (5).

D) EVIDENCE ONE VICTIM HAD BEEN STALKED

Steven Byers's mother testified that, approximately two months before the murders, her son told her that a man dressed all in black had taken his picture.

Problems: CREDIBILITY

Melissa Byers' testimony (19) in regards to her son Christopher, not "Steven," was unsubstantiated hearsay of something allegedly told to her by Chris six weeks before his death. Despite the fact that hearsay is traditionally recognized as inherently unreliable and disallowed in court, Judge Burnett granted an exception in this case (19).  IF a true account -- and not just a restatement of an old and widespread urban legend Melissa Byers may have decided to take advantage of in order to help

secure convictions for the defendants -- there is still no substantiating whether the man in black was indeed Damien Echols. The credibility of assuming it must be is undermined by the same "car" problems found in Vicki's testimony, at the very least. Furthermore, it is fair to wonder why the prosecution elected not to have her repeat this testimony at the Echols/Baldwin trial, where it would seem to have been far more germane.

E) JESSIE MISSKELLEY CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES BALDWIN'S CLOTHING

There was evidence that Baldwin owned a shirt and boots of the type described by the appellant.

Problem: INCONCLUSIVE

As Jessie Misskelley was acquainted with Jason Baldwin, it can be assumed he was familiar with the kinds of clothes Jason liked to wear, including his favorite T-shirts and boots, and would include those descriptions in any story he was fabricating to satisfy the demands of the police. It is especially true that most teenagers wear the same shoes (or in this case boots) every day.

F) FIBER EVIDENCE LINKING ACCOMPLICES TO CRIME

Finally, a witness from the state Crime Lab testified that she found fibers on the victims' clothing which were microscopically similar to items in the Echols and Baldwin residences.

Problem: INCONCLUSIVE

The fiber evidence was introduced merely to help tie Jessie's alleged accomplices Damien and Jason in with the crime. There was no fiber evidence introduced in either trial concerning Jessie. See the section on The Fiber Evidence in Part II.

OTHER EVIDENCE MENTIONED IN THE OPINION

From page 15 of Misskelley opinion: Detective Bryn Ridge and Inspector Gary Gitchell began another interrogation of the appellant at about 12:40 p.m. They employed a number of techniques designed to elicit a response from the appellant. A circle diagram was drawn and the appellant was told that the persons who committed the murders were inside the circle and that those trying to solve the crime were on the outside. He was asked whether he was going to be inside the circle or outside. He apparently had no response. He was then shown a picture of one of the victims and had a strong reaction to it. According to Gitchell, the appellant sank back into his chair, grasped the picture and would not take his eyes off it.

Problem: CREDIBILITY

In an October 1996 interview conducted by the Free the WM3 Support Fund, Jessie disputes this as an

accurate account of his reaction. Jessie disputes the accuracy of almost everything witnesses Gitchell and Ridge said about that interrogation -- this is given merely as an example. Jessie states that when the picture was placed in front of him, there was no reason for him to have any particular reaction to it at all. He wasn't even sure what it was suppose to be. To him it looked like merely a photo of a sleeping child. He denies ever displaying the strong reactions which were later attributed to him. (20)

From page 22: The final evidentiary issues can be discussed together. The appellant argues that the following evidence was erroneously admitted because it was either irrelevant, or its probative value was outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect: 1) a picture of Jason Baldwin wearing a black T-shirt with a skull and the name of the group Metallica on it; 2) testimony of a witness that she attended a cult meeting with the appellant and Echols; 3) a book on witchcraft found in Echols' home; 4) the testimony of Melissa Byers that her son told her that a man wearing black had taken his picture; 5) fiber evidence linking Baldwin and Echols to the crime; 6) boots worn by Echols and Baldwin 7) testimony that Echols was observed near the crime scene on the night of the murder.

Problem: RELEVANCE

Of the seven above, five have already been dealt with. Only parts of 1 and 6 contain new mentions of evidence. Damien reputedly, from nearly all available sources, commonly wore boots in public, and the earlier comments about Jessie identifying Jason's apparel still apply. Furthermore, it must be repeated that, though Jessie was able to correctly identify articles of clothing Jason owned, there is nothing to prove Jason happened to be wearing these May 5, 1993. The book on witchcraft, "Never on a Broomstick," is addressed in Part II under Other Evidence Mentioned in the Opinion.


PART II -- THE EVIDENCE AGAINST DAMIEN WAYNE ECHOLS AND CHARLES JASON BALDWIN

1) THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MATERIAL
A) DAMIEN ECHOLS SPOTTED NEAR CRIME SCENE
B) DAMIEN ECHOLS' OVERHEARD CONFESSION
C) THE FIBER EVIDENCE
D) KNIFE FOUND IN LAKE BEHIND JASON BALDWIN'S HOME
E) EVIDENCE DAMIEN ECHOLS OWNED SIMILAR KNIFE
F) EVIDENCE THAT DAMIEN ECHOLS DELVED INTO OCCULT
G) EVIDENCE CRIME SCENE BORE TRAPPINGS OF OCCULTISM
H) EVIDENCE CHRIS BYERS' SHIRT HAD CANDLE WAX STAIN

I) EVIDENCE DAMIEN ECHOLS HAD CRIME KNOWLEDGE UNKNOWN TO PUBLIC
J) JASON BALDWIN'S JAILHOUSE CONFESSION

2) EVIDENCE OF ECHOLS' PRIOR HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

3) EVIDENCE MENTIONED IN SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS

4) MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE OPINION
A) TIME OF DEATH EVIDENCE
B) THE GRAPEFRUIT DEMONSTRATION
C) EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ACCOMPLICES -- MULTIPLE TYPES OF ROPE KNOTS
D) EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ON NECKLACE

The Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion in the Echols/Baldwin case (B) runs 63 pages, addressing 82 separate articles appeal filed by either Damien Echols' lawyers Val Price and Scott Davidson; Jason Baldwin's lawyers Paul Ford and George Robin Wadley; or in several instances both. The same explanations and restrictions apply to this section as were described at the beginning the Misskelley Opinion.

1) THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MATERIAL

It is during the Opinion's review of whether the State meets the "substantial evidence" burden that most of the trial's evidence is detailed. It is outlined briefly in article 3 of the appeals, but developed more fully in a section entitled "Sufficiency of Evidence Arguments," included in the text after the reasons why each article of appeal is denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court are summarized. The Opinion breaks down the State's substantial case into ten separate areas of evidence. Each will be individually presented and then commented upon. Boldface type indicates the text is taken directly from the Court Opinion.

From pages 21-23 of Echols/Baldwin Opinion, all contiguous: The substantial evidence of Echols's guilt is as follows.

A) DAMIEN ECHOLS SPOTTED NEAR CRIME SCENE

Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth were well acquainted with Echols and testified that they saw Echols and his girlfriend, Domini Teer, walking after 9:30 on the night of the murders near the Blue Beacon Truck Stop, which is near Robin Hood woods where the bodies were found. The witnesses testified that Echols had on a dark-colored shirt and that his clothes were dirty. This evidence placed Echols in dirty clothes near the scene at a time close to the murders. Although not material to this point, other evidence established that Domini Teer might be confused with Baldwin as both had long hair and were of slight build.

Problems: CREDIBILITY, RELEVANCE

Of the seven passengers in that car, only Narlene (21) and two of her children, Tabitha (15) and Anthony (22), would ever state a belief they saw Damien Echols and Domini Teer along the side

of the service road that night. Narlene's husband Ricky, for instance, stated in his interview with the WMPD on December 7, 1993, that he could not make out who the figures were. (23) Anthony Hollingsworth, a convicted sex offender, also contradicted his mother's testimony on the stand while attempting to corroborate it by placing the sighting at an hour later. (22)

Narlene stated that the time of the sighting coincided with the beginnings of feeling "sick to her stomach" while driving, which could place her judgments about what she was seeing at such a time into question. (21) The truthfulness of the Hollingsworth family members' testimony is open to argument. According to the book The Blood of Innocents (page 125), various relatives described Narlene to police as a known gossip and a liar, and even the friend she was on her way to pick up at work that night, Dixie Hufford, told police in her WMPD interview Narlene "will exaggerate." (24) When Narlene first told her story to the police May 10th, 1993, Damien Echols had already been questioned by the police and was considered a suspect. Narlene was Damien's girlfriend Domini Teer's relative as well as neighbor, and also a neighbor of Jason Baldwin. It was she who first informed her nephew L.G. Hollingworth about the homicides. (25)  It can be expected she would have known about Echols' suspect status by May 10th, as well.

Besides reporting the sighting of Damien and Domini near the crime scene on the evening of May 5th, much of Narlene's May 10th police statement (26) is taken up with casting suspicion upon her nephew L.G. Hollingsworth. Few if any of her insinuations -- such as her concern about his strange, smelly box, for one example (26a) -- panned out under police investigation, however. According to the authors of The Blood Of Innocents, Narlene's relatives said she had a strong motive for wishing to get her nephew into trouble. By falsely tying L.G. into the crime, they suggested she was seeking revenge against L.G.'s father, with whom she had gone through a bitter divorce. (27)

To paraphrase the opinion the authors of The Blood of Innocents express on page 242, "If Narlene was wrong about L.G . . . then couldn't she be wrong about Damien, too?"

Equally open to doubt is the state's use of the Hollingsworths' identifications. The prosecution tried to

suggest that they had mistaken Jason Baldwin for Domini Teer (28), ignoring the obvious implication that, if the Hollingworths were incorrect about one of the people they were seeing, they might be incorrect about the other. The idea that they were mistaking Domini for Jason is undermined by the fact that the Narlene (21) and Tabitha Hollingsworth (15) both specifically described a pair of black pants with flowers on them which Narlene also states she had seen Domini wearing previously. The prosecution tried to counter this by saying what they were actually seeing was a pair of gray jeans Jason owned which had holes in the knees. (28) Another inconsistency is that Domini is described by Pam Hutchison as wearing a multicolored shirt that day (29), whereas Jessie described Jason as wearing either a black Metallica or Megadeth T-shirt. (13) The credibility of the Hollingsworths' statements that they could tell Damien's clothing from a brief glimpse in a moving car at night is made even more doubtful by the fact they describe him to be wearing dark or black clothing to begin with.

B) DAMIEN ECHOLS' OVERHEARD CONFESSION

Twelve-year-old Christy VanVickle testified that she heard Echols say he "killed the three boys." Fifteen-year-old Jackie Medford testified that she heard Echols say, "I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in, I'm going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out." The testimony of these two independent witnesses was direct evidence of the statement by Echols. These witnesses were cross-examined by Echols's counsel, and it was the jury's province to weigh their credibility.

Problems: CREDIBILITY, RELEVANCE

One wonders what kind of scale the jury was using. The credibility -- even the relevance -- of the girls' accounts are vulnerable to attack on virtually every front.

Contrary to what the Justices imply, in fact it was Jodee Medford, not Jackie, who testified in court. Though allegedly they were not standing together or even within sight of one another at the opportune moment, both Christy Van Vickle (30) and Jodee (31) claimed to have overheard Echols at their local softball field sometime in May of 1993.

They only came to believe the stranger they heard the remarks from was Damien Echols after seeing television news reports about his arrest, at which point Jodee Medford's mother, Donna, contacted the authorities. Till then, Donna Medford had

not taken the girls' stories seriously enough to warrant this measure. (32)

In their testimony, neither girl could account for why it was physically possible that they heard Damien Echols make this statement, yet nothing else Damien may have said, nor anything being said by any of the people he was allegedly in conversation with. (30),(31)

Neither could the girls describe any of the alleged other persons' present appearances, even though each claims to have been previously familiar with their faces, though not Damien Echols'. (30),(31) By the lack of context provided for their quote, its meaning is thrown into question. Even if the story was not something the girls invented to draw attention to themselves, even if their memory of the words was accurate after the month which elapsed before recounting them to authorities, and even if the man who made them was indeed Damien Echols, this can justifiably be asked: Was it said in a serious manner, meant to be taken literally, or was it perhaps a sarcastic remark -- perhaps a parody of what he realized people expected from him -- made by Damien in the casual company of friends with whom he felt he could joke around? Given the outlandish character of the "confession," this is ironically not a possibility which can be dismissed outright even if one were to presume that Damien were in fact be guilty.

C) THE FIBER EVIDENCE

Lisa Sakevicius, a criminalist from the State Crime Laboratory, testified that she compared fibers found on the victim's clothes with clothing found in Echols's home, and the fibers were microscopically similar.

Problem: INCONCLUSIVE

By Sakevicius' own admission the state's fiber evidence was inconclusive. The best that she was willing to testify to was that her lab found significant four fiber samples taken from the homes of Damien and Jason (though none in Jessie Misskelley's home), for reason that these fibers were "microscopically similar" to fibers found at the crime scene. (33)

One red rayon fiber found on Jason Baldwin's mother's robe was similar to fibers from Chris Byers’ polka dot shirt; a green polyester fiber from Michael's Cub Scout cap was similar in structure to ones from a blue cotton-polyester blend "Garanimals" shirt found in Damien's trailer (but which actually belonged to his step-brother), and, finally, one cotton and one polyester fiber found on Michael's blue pants were also structurally similar to

fibers from that same shirt. (33)

The cotton fiber match we can logically dismiss. Cotton fibers according to Lisa's testimony are inherently not distinguishable enough to allow for matching with reasonable certainty. (33) This leaves the rayon and polyester artificial fibers as possibly compelling evidence.

The clout of "fiber evidence" has taken on considerable prestige in the public's mind in recent years, but, ironically, professional law enforcement personnel, who ought to know, are not as impressed. For instance, the FBI has elected in the last decade to include on all Bureau fiber evidence reports a standard disclaimer about its inherent unreliability, as Val Price managed to get Sakevicius to concede during his cross-examination. Fibers are not comparable to fingerprints -- or dental imprints, for that matter. Moreover, in order for a probable match to have significance in a case like this, it must be shown that the fibers being tested have an "exclusive" source -- as opposed to so common a source that any match is meaningless. (33)

This is the test the state's single most conclusive pieces of scientific evidence fail. Cross-examination by Val Price of Sakevicius brought out that the polyester fibers found on Michael's clothing and the red rayon fiber found on Jason Baldwin's mother's robe (theorized to be transferred there through the pr