The appellate hearings for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley continued on August 10^th in Jonesboro, and for drama and poignancy, this round probably stands apart from the first three. Although one got the impression that the witnesses were being called somewhat piecemeal and in no specific order, it was clear that attorneys Michael Burt and John Phillipsborn had a strategy and were prepared to carry it out. The following is just a minimal overview, since the day-by-day details are covered at other websites.

Dr. Werner Spitz took the stand on Monday in a continuation of testimony he had begun last November. The upshot of his testimony was the same as it was in his affidavit in the Echols habeas petition: animal bites, not knife wounds, were present on the three victims’ bodies. Furthermore, all the wounds, with the exception of basil fractures to the skulls of all three victims, were inflicted post-mortem. Spitz also was of the opinion that Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore drowned.

On Tuesday the defense called Dr. Michael Baden. Chief Medical Examiner for the New York State Police, and consultant on numerous high-profile homicide cases. Although Baden seemed a bit sluggish and unsure of himself during the morning, in the afternoon session he came out blazing, firing off technical details with authority, clarity, and simplicity, details that would prove impossible to challenge during cross examination. He was also very critical of Dr. Frank Peretti’s autopsy reports on the three victims, saying that, among other things, Peretti seemed to have great difficulty distinguishing between peri-mortem and post-mortem wounds. His assessment of the injuries was the same as Spitz’s: post-mortem caused by animal predation. He agreed with Spitz about the causes of death, but added his belief that the head wounds would have been fatal in and of themselves.

Tuesday’s biggest surprise came when Mark Byers took the stand. After an impromptu hallway meeting, Michael Burt decided to call Mark in order to get it into the record that the types of carnivores that Baden testified were responsible for most of the injuries to the victims - primarily large turtles - were common to the area of Robin Hood Hills. Mark testified that he often found snapping turtles in the pool at his home on East Barton, a few blocks from the crime scene. He would fish the turtles out of the pool with a net, and put them down storm drains (Arkansas version of catch and release.) Later, outside the courthouse and away from cameras and reporters, Baden and Mark embraced and shared a few private words.

Wednesday opened with testimony from the very colorful forensic odontologist for the Miami/Dade Medical Examiner’s office, Dr. Richard Souviron. Although he is still a practicing dentist, Souviron’s trial expertise these days involves the analysis and identification of bite mark evidence, both human and animal. "I still do fillings and root canals", he says, "but these days 75% of my business is in the area of law enforcement." Today his business was to testify on behalf of the defense about what has by now become familiar fare: that post-mortem animal predation by land and/or aquatic animals, was responsible for the overwhelming majority of the wounds found on the three boys. Souviron testified that he reviewed the reports or testimonies of three doctors - Dr. Peretti, Dr. Kevin Dugan, and Dr. Harry Mincer, all expert witnesses called at Damien Echols’s 1997-1998 Rule 37 hearings - and found them lacking. None of the three men stated that they saw any evidence of bite mark activity (except for the superficial bites noted by Peretti on the "mucosal surfaces" of Christopher Byers’s cheeks, and Michael Moore’s tongue.) Perhaps the most interesting thing brought out by Dr. Souviron was his opinion that the insides of Steve Branch’s upper and lower lip had been bruised, ante-mortem. While Peretti had noted the lips to be "abraded, with multiple superficial lacerations . . . and multiple contusions", he made no notation of when or how he thought Stevie had sustained those particular injuries. According to Souviron, Stevie Branch had been "struck" on the mouth prior to his death.

Prosecutor Kent Holt’s cross examination did little to undermine Dr. Souviron’s testimony. Holt asked Dr. Souviron about the injury to the left forehead of Steve Branch. To case watchers, this was the famous "dome-shaped patterned injury" that some, including defense witness Dr. Thomas David (in 1998), believed was caused by a human bite.

Holt: Do you know Dr. Thomas David?

Sourviron: I do

Holt: Are you aware that Dr. David is of the opinion that the mark on Stevie’s forehead was a human bite mark.

Souviron: I am, and he’s wrong.

Holt: You know Dr. David? Know who he is?

Sourviron: Yeah, I know who he is, he’s a friend of mine, I recently had dinner with him, but he’s flat wrong.

Souviron stuck to his testimony that the theory that any injuries found on the boys’ bodies were made by any kind of knife was "bunk."

Pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Janice Ophoven, M.D. testified on Thursday. The primary purpose of her testimony was to dispel any notion of sexual injuries sustained during the attack on the boys. She testified that there was "no evidence of human agency" regarding the injuries to the groin area of Christopher Byers, and that there was not "one shred of evidence" that any of the boys had been sexually assaulted. Her opinion as to the cause of death? "Blunt force trauma and drowning."

The next two days probably were the most dramatic. Gail Grinnell was called testify, the purpose being to establish the alibi for Jason that Paul Ford did not present at the criminal trial.

She looked like she had aged thirty years in the past fifteen. Her hair hung limp on her face, and her eyes darted back and forth suspiciously. She was clearly terrified. Although she had been present in court for a good part of the day, Judge Burnett allowed her to testify. Today, Jason’s mother would finally get to tell the court where her son was when three eight-year-old boys were being murdered on May 5, 1993. She told essentially the same story that police had heard in 1993; that Jason was in school all day, had come home to check on his brothers, gone over to mow his uncle’s lawn, played video games at Wal-Mart with a friend, and was home for the night by 9:00 p.m. But Gail was in no shape to testify. She tried to answer John Philipsborn’s questions, but often acted as if she didn’t hear them, staring off into space, finally managing to squeeze out an, "Excuse me?" This pattern repeated over and over again, along with her tendency to look to Jason before answering almost every question. She would give random answers to questions not asked. "He had a Nintendo." "When he was arrested he was my height." The only time she really seemed to light up was when she talked about her job. "I did data entry for a transportation company in Memphis, answered the phone, worked in offices, sent out parts." She hasn’t been able to work in years.

The most puzzling thing about Gail Grinnell’s testimony was her statement that Damien Echols was not Jason’s "best friend." It was the one thing about the entire case that never seemed to be in question. In his 2005 book, Almost Home, Echols himself states that shortly after the two met, they were nearly inseparable. They were together nearly every day after school, "listening to music, talking, laughing at other people until we reached a fevered, manic pitch.". Every weekend one would sleep over the other’s house, Summers were spent fishing, playing video games, sneaking out at night with Jason’s brother, Matt ("Sometimes I think I miss Matt almost as much as I miss Jason.") And yet on the stand, Gail could remember only one of Jason’s other friends by name, one Kenneth Watkins, the boy Jason allegedly played video games with early in the evening of May 5^th, 1993. She looked off into space from the witness stand, repeating, "he had other friends . . . other friends . . ." , and looked around the room, as if she might see some familiar faces in the gallery. She looked like the ghost of Paul Ford, still trying to distance Jason from Damien. For Gail, this was her chance to finally tell the court about the boy she knew, her son, the one who would take care of his two younger brothers, feeding them dinner after Gail left for work, getting them ready for bed. The young boy who loved animals, and whose pet green snake was the top attraction in the neighborhood. The teenager she tried to protect from the police after his arrest by telling him not to talk until she could somehow get him a lawyer. Her oldest son, whose innocence she has never doubted. "We just want Jason to come home." But words seemed to allude her. After so many years of waiting to be allowed to address the court, she struggled to concentrate. "What I’m tryin’ to say", she managed to get out, "is that we prayed that they would find out who killed those kids. I never dreamed in my wildest dreams that he would be arrested." When she was asked by the defense if she had been hospitalized for mental illness, she answered - twice - "That was a long time ago."

As she was dismissed from the stand, she walked by Jason and said, "Was I all right?"

Also taking the stand on Jason’s behalf was Sally Ware, Jason’s high school art teacher. She was essentially a character witness. Jason was a good boy, nice, polite, did his schoolwork, wasn’t disruptive in class, had good attendance. Unfortunately, Ms. Ware could testify to nothing about Jason’s life outside of school.

Surely the biggest buzz of the hearings began Friday morning with speculation that none other than Vicki Hutcheson was going to take the stand. It was assumed that she was going to testify that she lied about almost everything she testified to in 1994. All eyes were upon her as she was called. She was wearing breezy, light green-colored matching pants and blouse, her long, reddish- blonde hair flowing behind her as she flounced down the aisle. She was sworn in, took the stand, and confidently gave her full name to the court. She was to be a witness for Jessie Misskelley, so Michael Burt began the questioning. "Your honor, before we can continue, Ms. Hutcheson has a question for the court. Go ahead and ask the judge, Vicki." The question she asked stunned the gallery. What, she wanted to know, was the statute of limitations on perjury in Arkansas? This prompted an immediate bench conference, followed by a ten minute recess to find out what the statute was in Arkansas. Ten minutes later, flanked by a public defender, Vicki was advised that there was no statute of limitations on perjury and that she could be prosecuted for past false testimony. Her "lawyer" advised the court that he was recommending that Vicki invoke her right against self-incrimination unless the court was willing to offer some kind of immunity. "I’m not giving her immunity", Judge Burnett snapped. What will Vicki Hutcheson do next? As usual, nobody knows, but without a grant of immunity her testimony is unlikely to be heard.

On Friday at 4:10 p.m., the defense announced it had no more witnesses to call. The State responded by informing the court that it had two expert witnesses to call (one of whom is perennial favorite Dr. Joshua Perper of Anna Nicole Smith fame) and they were both unavailable at the present time. Despite complaints from the defense, Judge Burnett set October 1^st and 2^nd as the next two dates for the hearings. The judge has asked for briefs from the attorneys 45 days after the hearings end, at which time he will be able to render a decision.