As the modern, TV recording equipped auditorium filled with more than 120 high school students (only one of whom was late), the room started buzzing with anticipation. They’d been waiting over two months to hear the speaker, and few knew exactly what to expect. They’d seen the films. They’d studied the case. Now they were going to meet the man. The house lights went down, and all eyes were focused on the big screen on stage. The images, so familiar to anyone who has followed the case for any length of time, began to fill the stage with scenes that made the speaker a household name among the faithful. The "Pumpkin Shoot," the flag-draped evangelist, bible in hand, sitting in front of his Jonesboro apartment ("I hate you. Forever and a day, shall I hate you"), the "Grave Stomping." A parade images showcasing the man at his flamboyant best raced across the screen to a fixated crowd of impressionable youths. Then, the booming audio fades, the lights go up, and Blackman High School (Murfreesboro, TN) Criminal Justice teacher Rich Kimberly takes center stage. "Ladies and Gentlemen", he announces dramatically, "John Mark Byers." Like a contestant on The Price is Right, Mark comes bounding down the steps, grabs the microphone, and begins to talk. And lord knows he can talk.

"Who out there believes, or ever believed, that I killed my son?", he asked, unsmiling. Nervous glances were exchanged, but Kimberly reassured them. "It’s ok", he said. Pretty soon a group of students began to grin, all pointing to one poor soul who suddenly felt very alone.

"C’mon up here, son", Mark called out. The student was soon on the stage facing a suddenly huge John Mark Byers. "It’s ok, buddy. I forgive you." After an awkward silence, Mark breaks out laughing, and bear-hugs the startled student. Slapping him on the back, Mark gives the boy a "Free the West Memphis Three" bumper sticker and mouse pad, and says, "From now on don’t go believing everything you hear!"

The November 19^th - 21^st (2008) round of the Rule 37 hearings for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley - covered in another article - were attended by Kimberly and a handful of very curious high school students. The class had watched Paradise Lost in their Criminal Justice class, and six of the brightest students had been selected to make the 250 mile trek to Jonesboro to observe the hearings. They had quite a day. After bumping into Judge John Fogelman, and having an impromptu Q&A with Burk Sauls of the WM3 support group, they eventually found themselves face-to-face with the towering figure of John Mark Byers. "We were hoping we’d get to see him", said Kimberly, "but we weren’t even sure he was coming." Mark and Kimberly went to lunch together, and the students were treated to a private debriefing with the man who had made such an impression on them during their study of the case of the West Memphis Three. The lunch ended too soon, and Kimberly had to head back to Murfreesboro right after court. "I asked Mark if he’d be willing to speak to my class back in Tennessee, and he said he would."

The students in Kimberly’s Criminal Justice I and II classes had not only viewed the Paradise Lost films, but had also gone over, "line by line", Damien Echols’s Second Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ was submitted to Arkansas’s Second Circuit Court in October of 2007, a subsequently dismissed without a hearing. "Almost all my students were convinced of the innocence of the West Memphis Three after viewing Paradise Lost", Kimberly said, "but they weren’t sure what to make of Byers." Many in the class believed that Mark had something to do with the murders. (Now why does this all sound so familiar? Is there anyone who comes away from a viewing of the HBO movies with a different opinion?) And shoulders shrugged across the board when the topic came to Terry Hobbs. "They didn’t know quite what to think."

Mark spent the better part of three and a half hours taking the students through his odyssey, with particular emphasis on his changed beliefs regarding the innocense of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley. He also talked about Terry Hobbs, and the recent evidence that has been identified regarding Hobbs’s DNA being found at the crime scene, culminating with a showing of the video of Hobbs’s June 2007 interview with the West Memphis Police Department. He talked about his time in prison, and the years he spent under a cloud of suspicion that he has to shake every time a new wave of believers are indoctrinated, always by a viewing of Paradise Lost, into a case that simply won’t go away.

When asked if he had viewed, or gone over with his class, the State’s Response to Echols’s habeas petition (5/30/08), or Echols’s Reply in Support of his Motion for a New Trial (8/12/08), Kimberly said, "I didn’t know they were out there."

On November 19th, the Rule 37 hearings for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley resumed in Jonesboro after being continued from September. Believing that this would be my last chance to see Jason, Jessie, Dan Stidham, Judge Burnett, and Brent Davis all together in the same courtroom, I found the best deal I could - which wasn’t as good as I thought it should be, given the state of the economy - and hopped on an Air Tran 717 to Memphis. I hadn’t seen Mark and Jacki in two years, and was anxious to catch up with them. During the three days of the hearings - now continued until January 28^th - I heard much that I already knew, but also things I didn’t. I was as fascinated as everybody else by the playing of the Wilkins video, and riveted by the playing of the audio tape - a tape made by Dan Stidham which most of us didn’t know existed - of the now famous "bible" confession taken at Pine Bluff on February 8^th, 1994, only a few days after Jessie’s conviction. Most of the details of what went on in court have been reported elsewhere by now, and there isn’t a need to rehash them here just to fill up space. I don’t have any new perspectives to offer on anything that was revealed. Like everybody else I just want to see three innocent young men, robbed of time they can never get back, set free to see and feel bright sunshine, breathe fresh air, and be able to walk the streets without looking over their shoulders. Sometimes it seems like too much to ask.

I sat with Mark and noted his reaction to different parts of the hearings. I watched him mill around during the breaks greeting people, pumping hands, sharing stories. I could see his face tighten when Brent Davis would ask Dan Stidham, for what seemed like the millionth time, if he thought he provided Jessie Misskelley with adequate representation in 1994. I saw tears rolling down Mark’s face as Dr. Werner Spitz took the stand late Friday to testify in cold, forensic language to the nature of the injuries received by Christopher, Stevie, and Michael; even after so many years, it never gets easier for him. After court on Thursday, I tagged along as Mark took a group of supporters to a local restaurant for a feast of catfish, crawfish, frog legs, and hush puppies. I listened as he moved around the table telling tales and not sparing the minutiae. I think everyone was enjoying themselves, though maybe feeling a little guilty about it, but I kept wishing that I could hear the thoughts of others, as if they were being spoken aloud. Maybe I’m just over-thinking it, but I can’t help but wonder if anyone was thinking, as I was, about what it really was that brought them to this obscure little southern town, leaving their safety zones at home, to confront this Confederate drama with other like-minded people, who for the most part were only known to them through the internet. Even after all these years, I’m really not sure. I do know one thing, however; everyone’s reason for being there was just a little different.

The "core" was well represented, with Burk Sauls, Grove Pashley, and Lisa Fancher of wm3.org present as they have been for so long, for no other reason than a show of support for two of the three men fighting for new trials, down-home Davids against an inscrutable legal Goliath. There was Mark Byers, who in the not-too-distant past would have probably read the daily updates in the Jonesboro Sun, loudly cursing the men he believed murdered his son (which is almost surely what Todd and Dana Moore actually did. Pam and Terry Hobbs are wild cards, Pam vacillating between the guilt and innocence of the three, and Terry thinking God knows what.) There were those who were drawn, like Mike from Boston, and Stan from Missouri, by some mysterious pull, something akin to that which compelled hundreds of pilgrims making the trek to Devil’s Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The message board faithful were there to offer support and report back to those who couldn’t make the trek. The movement has truly been globalized, and their messages were read daily by supporters in foreign countries, thousands of miles away. There was a high school criminal justice class from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, who had viewed the Paradise Lost films, and traveled over 300 miles to Jonesboro to observe the hearings and talk face-to-face with those whom they had seen on screen in their classroom. I’m not sure that their questions were really answered that day, though they asked plenty of them.

Some came to write about the case, to cover it for the media, maybe get a quote or two. The TV cameras were there, interviews were given, sound bites recorded for the evening news. Still others came to apparently stroke their own egos, pull childish stunts, and taunt the court with blatant disrespect. Apparently, this was their way of showing support. Sticking their faces in front of cameras, bringing food items into the courtroom, littering the area around their seats, filming the proceedings despite a direct court order to the contrary (this is not an original stunt; it was done in September as well, albeit by different people), posting stills and video on the internet. Some even felt free to criticize the movement’s organizers for, among other things, the clothes they were wearing. I guess what they say is true: there’s one - or more - in every crowd.

On Friday afternoon Jessie and Jason were led back to their "homes", Varner Unit for Jessie and Tucker for Jason. Jason looked sad, and for good reason. Aside from his mother and brother being present in court, as they were in September, there was an extremely cute young blond (she reminded me of Kaitlin Olson, "Dee" from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) who arose from her pew to close-talk Jason at every break. At one point, they even held hands. This appeared to me to be some twisted southern hospitality on the part of the court. Let people talk to the guys, buy them lunch, hold hands in a near-canoodle. Then rubber stamp the denials, lock them back up and throw away the key. Smile to their faces, stick it up their asses. People can’t keep squawking from California forever, can they? At the end of Werner Spitz’s testimony on Friday the excitement was over, at least for the time being, but the guys will at least get out of their cells for ten days or so in January when the hearings are scheduled to resume and hopefully conclude.

As the Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Rule 37 hearings resume later this month, our attention will again be focused on the concept of justice as applied - or not - in the fifteen-year-old case of the West Memphis Three. Using the power of the law, the two men convicted of the first-degree murders of three eight-year-old boys in 1993 will continue in their attempt to obtain new trials, despite having found that the two - justice and the law - don’t always coincide. Justice relates to righteousness, fairness, and impartiality. The law, on the other hand, defines a set of rules, codified rules of conduct that society has agreed to live by (government by consent of the people.) The objective of any civilized society is to attain the former via the latter. The law is an impersonal construct, while justice is very personal indeed. Where they come together - the battlefield - is in the criminal court, in this case the Craighead County Circuit Court in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

A criminal case is a contest between the state and the accused, both represented by attorneys, with the proceedings presided over by the judge. The lawyers are advocates, one representing the accused, the other ostensibly representing the people (us.) The judge is a referee, assuring that both sides play by the rules. Justice is the expected outcome, but in practice, neither side is particularly interested in justice; they want to win. This is how their performance is measured, and how they advance their careers. In his 2003 book The Wrong Men, a study of 102 wrongful death row convictions, Stanley Cohen said, "The ideal of justice that once favored our best instincts has been turned against itself. The great fear of a politician or prosecutor is not that an innocent man may be convicted, but that a guilty one might walk free. For which candidate seeking public office today will be ready to chance the prospect of being called soft on crime?" In order to give a defendant a fighting chance against the power of the court and the prosecutor, the Sixth Amendment levels the field by guaranteeing the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury of his peers. The job of the jury is to decide the relative merit of each side’s arguments, tempered by the admonishments and instructions given by the judge, decide whether or not the state made its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, what punishment is to be meted out in accordance with the law. If any one of these critical components - the attorneys, the judge, or the jury - are compromised, the result will be injustice. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the system works. Were this not so, we would have ceased to exist as a nation long ago.

When Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist #78 - the second most quoted of the Federalist Papers (Madison’s #42 is the first) - in 1788, he was attempting to assuage anti-federalist fears over the power the judiciary would wield in the new republic (eventually defined in Article III of the Constitution.) Hamilton believed that the judiciary should exist as a "barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body." In other words, the judicial branch was designed to protect the citizenry from the legislative branch. But who protects us from the judiciary? Hamilton (as "Publius") wrote, "All judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior." [Original emphasis from Clinton Rossiter’s edition.] Judges can be impeached, as can all elected officials. It just isn’t done often enough. The Constitution was designed to afford the judiciary with the least power; Hamilton himself believed that it was the "least dangerous" of the three branches of government. To Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jesse Misskelley, Jr., those concepts are like hollow platitudes. Indeed, James Madison and George Mason - author and "father" of the Bill of Rights respectively - would have cringed at the flagellation of the Sixth Amendment - the heart of a Rule 37 petition - that took place in the Craighead County Circuit Courthouse in 1994. On November 19^th, Misskelley and Baldwin are getting another bite at the apple in the continuation of their Rule 37 hearings. (Echols had his denied in 2001.) Their former attorneys - as well as presiding Judge David Burnett - will be on the hot seat as the appellants’ new attorneys take center stage for round two.

The questions being raised by the Arkansas legal procedure known as a Rule 37 petition all relate to the ineffective assistance of counsel, in this case by Daniel Stidham (Misskelley) and Paul Ford (Baldwin.) Misskelley’s case has been perhaps the most troubling, due to the fact that he confessed to the crimes, and further implicated Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin, who were tried separately. The problems with Misskelley’s confession - which the Arkansas State Supreme Court (ASSC) called a "confusing amalgam of events", despite affirming the convictions - form the core of his petition for a number of reasons, including a list of "inconsistencies":

Perhaps central to the petition - indeed, to the entire case - is the question of Jessie’s alleged mental impairment at the time he gave his statement, and Dan Stidham’s alleged failure in bringing it out in court. At trial, Stidham tried to bring that information to the jury through the testimony of discredited psychologist William Wilkins. Wilkins testified that Misskelley’s "full scale" IQ was 72, putting Jessie in the "borderline retarded" range (normal being 84-116.) The fact that Wilkins was currently on probation and prohibited from practicing in cases of child sexual abuse, led Misskelley’s new attorney to conclude that Stidham was negligent in allowing Wilkins to testify to what was a key element to the Misskelley confession, i.e., that his mental state caused him to be especially susceptible to coercion. Wilkins was also barred from testifying to the results of a so-called "suggestibility" test given to Misskelley - the Gunderson test - on the grounds that not only was it an unscientific exam, according to Judge Burnett, but that Wilkins was not qualified to administer the exam or interpret the results. Misskelley’s new attorney, Michael Burt, questioned why Stidham would put someone of Wilkins’s credentials on the stand without properly vetting him. In a gross understatement, the petition cites Stidham’s failure to "prepare for and object to Wilkins’s unreliable opinion."

These hearings are about ineffective assistance of counsel. The issue Misskelley brings before the court is a direct attack on Dan Stidham’s competence. As the only attorney to have stuck by his former client over the years - he hasn’t officially represented him since his 1996 direct appeal to the ASSC - Stidham should have been stung by the allegations. Instead, he took the stand in September and repeatedly stated his lack of readiness to defend a capital case, that he had, in fact, never tried a major felony as lead attorney. He admitted to being inadequately funded, and being unaware that there was actually a provision in the law to provide him with funding for Misskelley’s defense. Co-counsel Greg Crow testified, "We prefaced everything [when asking experts to testify] that ‘we can’t promise we’ll get you travel expenses.’ " Stidham was accused of having erred in his failure to prevent the introduction of damning testimony, including that of Vicki Hutcheson, his failure to timely raise a motion to suppress Misskelley’s statement, and a general failure in investigating Jessie’s mental health history, resulting in an ineffective trial strategy. Stidham took it on the chin. Paul Ford was more defiant, insisting that he did the best he could, laying everything else off on the court (he may, of course, be right.)

Summing up their allegations of ineffective counsel, the petition states, "Every facet of counsel’s performance in this case violated then-existing national norms as expressed by the American bar Association guidelines for the appointment and performance of counsel in death penalty cases." But that’s not the standard. In Strickland v Washington, the court held that, "the proper standard requires the defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." That’s a tough standard, one that most ineffective assistance of counsel claims can’t meet.

Wednesday, September 24^th marked the first time that Jason Baldwin had been in a courtroom since his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder in March of 1994. He looked much older, very thin, perhaps less than hopeful as he was led into court by sheriff’s deputies. When Judge David Burnett dismissed the motions for new trials for all three defendants on September 11^th, Jason could hardly have been surprised. Still, when asked by reporters what his hopes were for Wednesday’s proceedings, he replied, "For justice to finally be served." Burnett’s ruling left both Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr. with only their Rule 37 petitions left to be heard.

Jason’s claim of ineffective counsel - a "Rule 37" petition in Arkansas - centered on several issues. To begin with, Baldwin claims that the search and arrest warrants issued on June 3^rd, 1993, were faulty. The petition alleges that circuit court judge William P. "Pal" Rainey had "abandoned his detached and neutral role" by coaching WMPD Detective Bryn Ridge in the preparation of those documents. The petition also cites attorney Paul Ford’s failure to obtain a separation of Baldwin’s trial from that of co-defendant Damien Echols, as well as his failure to properly discredit the testimony of jailhouse snitch Michael Carson, whose juvenile record and LSD abuse should have been more vigorously pursued by Ford. During an in camera session during the trial, Burnett had ruled that Carson’s medical records were obtained inappropriately - though inadvertently - by the defense, and because it was the source of information about Carson’s drug abuse, it was inadmissable. Baldwin also claimed that Carson had been given information about the case by counselor Danny Williams, information that Carson later used to incriminate Baldwin from the witness stand. Burnett had ruled that Williams’s communications with Carson were of a counseling nature, and thus were considered privileged and inadmissable, and further ruled that Williams could not be called as a witness. He did, however, allow Ford to cross-examine Carson on whether or not he had a conversation with Williams about the case. Carson said that he did, but that it was after his "soft heart" compelled him to contact prosecutor Brent Davis in February of 1994, some seven months after he allegedly heard Baldwin’s incriminating statements.

That Ford was on the hot seat on Wednesday was to be expected. Baldwin’s new attorney, John Philipsborn, is responsible for proving that Jason received ineffective and incompetent counsel at his trial in 1994. While Ford surely knows the drill, it’s a bitter pill. Saying that he was "diligent" in developing alibi witnesses for Baldwin, in the end they were simply too unreliable to put on the stand. "I did not find successfully what I was looking for - an alibi that would not unravel on me." He said that he still believes in his former client’s innocence. "As much as I wanted to see Jason go free, I cannot imagine I would not have put on a witness if I thought it would help his alibi." Jason remembers it differently. "I remember always telling them I was innocent. I would tell [the lawyers] every time, there are people who know where I was on May 5 and May 6", he said from the stand, but, "they just kept shrugging me off."

Mark Byers was on hand to watch the proceedings that he hopes will lead to Jason’s and Jessie Misskelley's freedom. "I believe that finally there is an opportunity for a wrong to be made right. I do not believe Damien Echols will get the death penalty; I believe Jason and Jessie will walk free." Few believe that this hearing will make that happen. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are almost automatic in capital cases, and also rarely succeed, but Mark is still hopeful. "When Echols and Baldwin were convicted, I thought they had good lawyers. I started asking questions. I took Police 101 and realized there were a lot of things not answered." And once again, Mark took head on the issue of his so-called "change of heart" with regard to the innocence of the West Memphis Three. "One of the hardest things I've ever done in my life is accept the fact of being wrong. No one likes to admit you're wrong. No one wants to choke on crow, and all of the things you've said and done, and realize that you're wrong. I've always learned it took a lot bigger man to stand up and admit his mistakes, than to hide behind a lie."



Whether or not Burnett rules in his favor, Jason still has avenues for appeal. Matt Baldwin, who was fourteen at the time of Jason’s arrest, was in court to support his brother. "If Burnett doesn’t do his duty and free him, he knows that he will be freed by a federal court." Many predict that the case will indeed go that far, but Matt still has trouble accepting that the case ever got to court in the first place. "I think that it really had to do with [the fact that] he didn’t have enough money to hire the right experts and everything to show that it was impossible for my brother to have committed those murders. My brother and them should never even have been questioned." Matt echoes the beliefs of many of the West Memphis Three supporters that the three were targeted from the beginning, and that no amount of exculpatory evidence would steer the police or the prosecutors toward another suspect. On that subject, Mark Byers isn’t shy: "Terry Hobbs killed my son, and needs to take responsibility. I cleared my name with a polygraph test and if he’s innocent, why hasn't he done the same?"

For Jason Baldwin, Thursday marked the first time in the long history of the case that he took the stand in his own defense. He had difficulty talking about the events of fifteen years ago, but felt compelled to do so. "I felt I had to do it. It was necessary." It was of some comfort to his family for him to have a day in court, but what they really want is to bring him home. "It’s really been hard watching him grow up in there knowing that he’s innocent", Jason’s mother, Gail Grinnell said outside the courthouse, "and I’m really hoping that the judge will grant his release or a new trial." Saying that "It’s got my hopes up", she nonetheless lamented the nightmarish life that the family has lived for all these years. "It’s been horrible. Very horrible. Because knowing that he was innocent and he was so young, he had just turned 16. He was still a child."

As expected by many, Craighead County Circuit Judge David Burnett dismissed Damien Echols’s motion for a new trial. The motion was originally filed in federal court in October of last year, but was remanded to state court by federal judge William R. Wilson. Burnett had scheduled evidentiary hearings to be held during September and October, but abruptly dismissed the motion yesterday. "I’m not at all surprised", Mark Byers said. "It’s pretty much exactly as I expected." Citing sources that he says he is not at liberty to divulge, Mark said, "The real fireworks will be in federal court. Jury misconduct goes to the heart of the Constitution. Federal courts take that kind of thing very seriously." He is referring, of course, to the sealed affidavits concerning allegations of juror misconduct that were a part of Echols’s habeas petition. Echols has claimed that jurors in his and Jason Baldwin’s trial in 1994 relied on the confession of Jessie Misskelley during their deliberations, despite an admonition from the bench to disregard any knowledge of it. The petition also alleges that Little Rock homebuilder Kent Arnold, known officially as "Juror number four", allegedly had a conversation with a "non juror" at the time of the trial, where he asked for advice on how to "correctly" answer questions during voir dire. Once he secured a seat on the jury, and became its foreman, Arnold allegedly used knowledge of facts not in evidence - primarily the confession - to sway fellow jurors toward a conviction.

Burnett flatly ruled against Echols’s claim that new DNA evidence would prove him actually innocent of the 1993 murders of Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore. The statute under which Echols filed his original motion for DNA testing in 2002 has since been amended, and the DNA evidence offered by Echols, "does not meet the strictures of the new statute." Echols, Burnett said in his ruling, "cannot produce material evidence raising a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offense, as is now required by the statute."

Mark Byers was not, of course, the only one who wasn’t surprised. Lorri Davis spoke to her husband yesterday about the ruling. "We see this as a blessing", she told KARK in Little Rock. Getting the case out of the hands of retiring justice David Burnett has long been a goal of attorneys for all three appellants. Burnett’s ruling moves Echols’s case to the Arkansas State Supreme Court for appeal. Should he fail there, Echols will move his case to federal district court. Therein, his supporters hope, lies the plum.

The dismissal of Echols’s motion leaves Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley with only Rule 37 petitions to be heard in circuit court. Burnett has scheduled hearings for the two on September 24^th and September 30^th respectively. Mark Byers says he plans on attending at least some of the hearings. "If Jason or Jessie are there, they’ll see me." Mark continues to maintain the innocence of the three men after being convinced that the new evidence points away from the West Memphis Three, and towards someone else.

On February 4^th, 1994, after a trial lasting only eight days, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Michael Moore, and one count each of second-degree murder in the deaths of Christopher Byers and Steven Branch. He was given a life sentence plus twenty years for each second-degree count. To many it was an open and shut case. Misskelley confessed; the jury heard it on tape. A confession by the accused is probably the most powerful piece of evidence a prosecutor can offer at trial. It is particularly vital when the state has little else. In its opinion in Moran v Burbine, the United States Supreme Court stated, "Admissions of guilt are essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the laws." In another case, James v State, the court opined, "An accused person knowingly makes an acknowledgment that he or she committed or participated in the commission of the criminal act. This acknowledgment must be broad enough to comprehend every essential element necessary to make a case against the defendant." Whether or not Misskelley’s confession was broad enough is open to debate, but it surely did not "comprehend every essential element" of the crime. In fact, he couldn't seem to get a single detail correct without the "guidance" of his interrogators. Despite its many troublesome characteristics - exacerbated by the fact that so little of it was recorded either on paper, or tape - the power of his "confession", actually hearing the defendant admit his involvement, was enough for the jury to convict.

Following his conviction, there was a good deal of volleying back and forth on whether or not Jessie would testify at the Echols/ Baldwin trial in Jonesboro. In a series of legal maneuvers (that eventually resulted in a defense motion of prosecutorial misconduct), prosecutors Brent Davis and John Fogleman leaned on Misskelley to testify. Davis and Fogleman were encouraged by sheriff’s deputies who, while transporting Jessie from Clay County to Pine Bluff immediately following his conviction, "asked Jessie if he had anything he wanted to say." In the recounting of this, the "second Misskelley confession", we are asked to believe that the completely dejected eighteen-year-old we saw being placed into a squad car after trial, began to sing like a canary on his ride to prison. What better way for him to endear himself to his captors than by giving them details of the murder of three children, a crime he had plead "not guilty" to? Can we accept that Jessie inculpates himself so readily for the benefit of the two lackeys taking him to prison, after denying for the last eight months that he was ever at the crime scene? But it doesn't really matter. Judge Burnett denied the motion to dismiss, and Misskelley never did testify, steadfastly maintaining his innocence to this day.

SO WHAT’S IN A LOOK?

There is a scene in the first Paradise Lost film that has always intrigued me. Jessie and his very large family are waiting in what appears to be someone’s office for the verdict to be handed down. Big Jessie is on one side of the room, seated, and Shelby Misskelley is on the other side. In between is a gaggle of sisters, cousins, friends - I don’t know who all the people are, but they are there to try to keep Jessie’s sprits high as they await the return of the jury. Jessie complains that people in the gallery were heckling him, " 'Why are you always keeping your head down, Jessie?’ I was told to, that’s why." Shelby remarks that "if you had your head up and were looking around they’d have said something about that, so it really don’t matter." Big Jessie adds, "Just like they’re saying about Damien, always twisting his neck around." Then, out of the blue, Jessie’s sister, who is standing immediately to his right wearing a yellow ribbon on her sweater, says, "Oh, Damien’s a good kid." Jessie whips around to face her with a look that says, "Are you crazy?" She quickly backs down, saying, "I guess, I don’t know", as Shelby chimes in, "I don’t know Damien." What did this exchange mean? Ever since first noticing it, I couldn’t get it out of my mind. I’m not a big believer in body language interpretation, but this meant something. But what?

Could it mean that Jessie, at that point in time, believed that Damien was guilty of the murders, as in "He’s the one who got me into this mess"? And could that mean, "He got me into this mess by talking me into coming with him that day", or, alternately, "If I hadn’t said I was there with him, I wouldn’t be here right now"? If only we had a recording, transcript, some good notes, or even some not-so-good notes - anything - of the interrogation on June 3^rd, rather than the selected snippets the police saved, we wouldn’t have to guess and resort to things like trying to read body language. We don’t have these things, however; the WMPD apparently wasn’t able to pull off this rudimentary step in the prescriptive interviewing process. In my second home state of Connecticut (New York is my first, Virginia my third), there was a case in 1973 where an eighteen-year-old came home one day to find that his mother had been murdered. The police, rather than begin an investigation, began a "marathon" interrogation of Peter Reilly, the height of which was a polygraph examination. "The charts tell us you killed your mother, Pete", he was told (read, "he’s lying his ass off!") "Aren’t those things ever wrong?", he asked. The examiner told him, "The machine is never wrong, only the operator, and I’ve been doing this for twelve years without an error." Peter Reilly was convicted of manslaughter, remaining free on an appeal bond,  before the new prosecutor (the previous one had died) discovered crucial exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from the defense. The case against Reilly was dismissed. A key factor in the dismissal of the charges was that the grilling he had undergone at the hands of the Connecticut state police had been completely taped. What a concept. Police tried, unsuccessfully, to build a new case against Reilly, unable to admit that they had made a mistake the first time.

Richard Lapointe was not so lucky. In another Connecticut case, Lapointe was convicted of the rape and murder of eighty-eight-year-old Bernice Martin, his wife’s grandmother. After the crime, allegedly set her apartment on fire. For two years following the murder, there were no solid leads. Police decided it was time to get a confession from someone. Although he had no history of violence, the police zeroed in on Lapointe as a suspect because he would periodically ask police if they had caught anyone yet. He had an alibi for the time of the murder, an alibi that police ironically taped during an interview with Lapointe’s wife. He had other, more serious problems, however. Lapointe was born with "Dandy-Walker" syndrome, a birth defect in which the sufferer is born with part of the cerebellum missing, causing poor motor coordination and problems with "cognition of a higher order." Although his intelligence is measured at 92 - low normal - Richard Lapointe lacks any sense of social intelligence, and posseses an extreme vulnerability to the type of psychological pressure brought to bear during a police interrogation - nine grueling hours in Lapointe’s case - during which time he signed three confessions, all pre-written for him by police. He would sign, recant, sign, recant . . . does any of this sound familiar? These confessions, when introduced in court, contained "such inconsistencies and contradictions at to make one conclusion inescapable. He said what the police wanted him to say. Lapointe has been in prison for twenty-one years.* It doesn’t require much deductive reasoning to conclude that the police didn’t want the bulk of the nine-hour interrogation of Richard Lapointe open to public scrutiny.

There is another nagging question about Jessie Misskelley’s statements. Twice during his February 27^th statement - the infamous "third confession" that prompted his filing a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct - Jessie was advised against making any statement to the prosecution (once each by Greg Crow and Dan Stidham.) He had been taken under court order by sheriff’s deputies to the office of attorney Joe Calvin in Rector, Arkansas, at which time prosecutor Brent Davis began taking his statement about the night of the murders. Davis was preparing to offer him a grant of use immunity in return for his testimony at the Echols/Baldwin trial. In fact, Judge Burnett granted immunity to Misskelley that night. Jessie then gave his third, contorted statement, with some details changing and some staying the same. There was much heated dialog between the attorneys, and at one point Burnett was called at home. "Y'all were asking me to make a ruling from my den where I was watching TV in my underwear", he recalled, "and you popped all this on me where everybody was angry with each other . . ." The issue at hand was whether or not Davis had the right to have Misskelley transported from prison to give a statement without approval from his attorneys. Burnett eventually ruled that once a defendant has been convicted, the state can talk to him pretty much whenever they want to, especially since Greg Crow had been made aware -  after the fact -  that Jessie was on his way to Rector to talk. Shortly after that very weird session in Joe Calvin’s office, Misskelley decided once and for all that he would maintain his innocence and proceed with his appeals. His case will be heard along with Baldwin’s and Echols’s in Jonesboro Circuit Court between September 8^th and October 3^rd.

So here’s the question. Both times that Misskelley was asked that night in Rector if he wanted to make a statement, against the advice of counsel, his answer was, "Yes, because I want something done about it." What exactly was "it?" According to Officer John Moody of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department, in the statement made during transport to Pine Bluff after his conviction, Jessie said that "he has felt sorry for what has happened and talks as if he wants to testify against the other boys so they will not go free, and to help himself." Hmm. So is that the "it" that Jessie was referring to? An altruistic desire to see justice done combined with a healthy dose of saving his own ass? If this were true, why did he change his mind? Was he, as Dan Stidham and Greg Crow maintained, perjuring himself during the February 17^th statement in Rector? Is it possible that Jessie Misskelley - who tested a full twenty IQ points under Richard Lapointe - was being pulled apart by the enormity of the situation, something that even a person of higher intelligence would find unbearable? Was he, as was charged with Richard Lapointe, merely saying what the police wanted him to say? Dan Stidham had requested of Judge Burnett that a psychiatric evaluation be performed on Misskelley before he was allowed to make any further statements to prosecutors. Jessie himself said he wanted "help." If Jessie lied, the consequences of that lie are incalculable. And since he never told the same story twice, well, you know the saying: A lie changes with retelling, but the truth remains the same.

So what was Jessie Misskelley trying to say with his eyes when they shot daggers into his sister when she said, "Damien’s a good kid?"

As Damien Echols’s latest appeal works its way through the court system, it’s hard not to reflect on one of the principal components, not only of his appeals, but of the original trial as well. That component is, of course, the confession of Jessie Misskelley, Jr. While much public attention has been focused on the validity of the statement itself - was it "coerced", why were so many details incorrect, etc. - it must be noted that were it not for the leaking of the confession to the press, it may have been possible to voir dire a jury for the Echols/Baldwin trial that wasn't  so familiar with the details that first appeared in the Memphis Commercial Appeal on June 7^th, 1993. West Memphis municipal judge William P. "Pal" Rainey had ordered the sealing of "all investigative files in the triple slaying" on June 4, 1993. Two days later, however, a twenty-seven page transcript of Misskelley’s statement was "obtained" by the Commercial Appeal, and excerpts were published three days later.

Fifteen years and fifty-six days later, we still don’t know who leaked that statement to the press, or why. The newspaper has confirmed that the source of the leak was never made public, and that they are still unable to reveal his or her identity.

The issue of the press and their confidential informants is one that has been argued many times with mixed results. The press relies on its confidential sources. Were it not for the assurance of anonymity, these informants would never come forward with information that is often vital to the public interest. Besides, the First Amendment guarantees that congress will pass no laws "abridging the freedom of the press." But are there limits?

Sure there are. But they’re slippery. In 1972 when William Farr of the Los Angeles Times refused to reveal a source who provided information that he used for an article on the Charles Manson murders, the notorious Justice Charles Older sent him to the cooler for forty-six days. Most recently, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was ordered to jail by a federal justice for refusing to reveal her source of information about the Valerie Plame "outing", believed by prosecutors to have been someone in the Bush administration (ThinkProgess.org names twenty three such persons.) But more often than not, the press is protected, and that is how it should be. That’s why the First Amendment was, well, the first amendment.

So what about Bartholomew Sullivan and the Commercial Appeal? The leak of the Misskelley confession was in direct violation of the order of the court. Why was there no effort by the Municipal Court to find out where the leak came from? Or dothey already know? Perhaps the system was overwhelmed with the sheer size of the investigation. The cat was, after all, already out of the bag. But even fifteen years later, wouldn’t you like to know who thought it was good idea to sabotage the most difficult case that the West Memphis Police Department had ever investigated? Didn't they know exactly what they were doing?

Comfort and Convenience.

When you have these two things in your life it makes things easier to deal with. Comfort. Nice home, fine car, money in the bank. Convenience. Lots of friends, at your finger tips, only a phone call away, always ready. Many more words could be added to the list, but you get the idea.

Now, I’ve said that to say this. Ain’t it easy to ride the bandwagon! When you are rolling everybody is your friend. They stand up and fight for you, call people out on their lies about you. See, that will put you, and keep you, in your Comfort Zone. Why leave? Life has gone on for all these years.

So what changed?

I still have not killed anybody, still the same country-stupid, redneck hick. So why all the haters now? Easy: convenience. I am a easy target; the haters do not have to admit they were wrong. It’s strange. The only people that have a voice in this as for how I feel about the case would be the parents of the other children, Dana, Todd, Pam, and of course Terry Hobbs. Pam agrees that the search for the truth is more important than her personal comfort. Dana and Todd, well, comfort and convenience is all I can see. And Terry Hobbs? Can you folks guess what I would be doing if I was Terry Hobbs? All these years I have stood up for myself and took on all assclowns, bar none. Think what I might do to somebody I know, and know where they live. It isn’t the same as it is with some of these internet folks running their pieholes. Todd got him a dose over the phone. Why did he call the WMPD? I'll tell you why: he got his memory back. Enough said.

Now what about me? Simple: I wanted answers and I got them. No, this is not easy, and it sure as hell ain’t no fucking game. A man’s life hangs in the balance. Three dead children deserve better. The stakes are huge. When it is all over - and I believe it will be, one way or another - I will still be here. My life isn’t over!!! MY son’s not coming back.

These next words are not mine, however they have changed my life. I have learned much from this man’s words.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy," Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love, 1963

Challenge and Controversy. Interesting.

So you see, this is not comfort, and it sure as hell ain’t convenient. It is, however, challenge and hell yeah, controversy! Dr. King was a great man. He has helped many people, from back in the 1960s to this day. No matter what I have to go through, I will not stop. I have always been up for a challenge, and sure as hell I’m controversial. If I have to fight, so be it. I’ll fight not with my fists, for those who wondered; that would the old JMB. Dr King I am not, however the man had some great advice, and some powerful words to live by.

I hope this helps my friends understand me a little better. You can ask folks who speak to me on the phone. I sound smarter than I look. Maybe I have a radio face, like Memphis, lmao@myself!

John Mark Byers

West Memphis Three supporters know that Pearl Jam front man Eddie Vedder is on their side, and has been for nearly ten years. Vedder, with a string of best selling albums with Pearl Jam, has also launched several solo efforts, most recently composing the original score to the movie, Into the Wild. The soundtrack has earned nominations for two Golden Globes and a Grammy for the song Guaranteed. Vedder is doing a two week, seven city tour in April with some of the proceeds going to raise money for the Free the West Memphis Three defense fund. Without the help of big name acts like Vedder, the current flurry of legal activity, giving the three their best shot yet at a new trial, would surely not be happening.

Vedder flashes his FTWM3 T-shirt whenever he gets a chance, as he did at a Pearl Jam concert in San Bernardino, CA during the 2000 tour. He even incorporated the cause into the lyrics of the Vedder/Gossard song, Do the Evolution:

Pearl Jam is touring the East Coast in June of this year, doing eleven cities in two weeks. Tickets go on sale in March, and are sure to sell out quickly.

Damien Echols said of Vedder on Larry King Live in December 2007, "Eddie has went [sic] above and beyond the call of duty to me and my wife both. You know, he has been probably the greatest friend a person could have through all of this."

Great friend indeed; his West Coast tour sold out within minutes. Tenclub  - the Pearl Jam private fan club ($20 for membership) has - or had - a $65 starting price for tickets, but e-bay shows prices already up over $400 a pair. Vedder auctioned off five pairs of tickets per show - seventy tickets in all - to benefit the WM3. Each pair of tickets is sold with a one night stay in a "premium" hotel, and "backstage chat" with Eddie.

Pearl Jam, like many rock artists today, have a variety of other causes near to their hearts, including relief for flood victims in Washington State, support of "reproductive freedom", getting out the youth vote, and a variety of environmental causes.

On March 1^st, 2008, the always entertaining Dark Lord Genocyde (DLC) will be interviewing John Mark Byers on his internet radio program. This will be a great opportunity for anyone who is interested to listen to DLC question Mark (get it?) about everything from the agonizing period following Christopher’s death, Mark’s controversial appearances in the two HBO movies, and his time in prison, to his "conversion" to believer in the innocence of the WM3, his relationship with Terry Hobbs, and the upcoming book and movie that he is involved with. Not only will you be able to listen, Mark will be taking questions from listeners via Yahoo Messenger.

This will be a unique opportunity to hear and interact with one of the most outspoken supporters and straight talking individuals on the internet today. Follow the link below, click on the "Dancing Skeletons", and you’ll be right where you need to be on March 1st..

http://www.darksideradio.com/

Air times are:

3:00pm (Pacific)
4:00pm (Mountain)
5:00pm (Central)
6:00pm (EST)