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?