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)

As far as anyone but the Damien Echols legal team knows, the future of the West Memphis Three rides on a single hair. Or two. A single hair found at the crime scene has been touted as being consistent with that of victim Steve Branch’s stepfather, Terry Hobbs. Since the hair is also consistent with 1.5% of the population - which, according to defense team forensic serologist Thomas Fedor, is a "rough match" - it means that approximately 415 other people in West Memphis could be suspects, based on that evidence alone. When other factors are taken into account, such as the classic "means, motive, and opportunity" test, that number is much lower, possibly even as low as one. Another hair found at the scene - both hairs were discovered weeks after the murders - has been similarly identified as possibly belonging to Hobbs family friend and neighbor, David Jacoby. As much as Supporters might wish this to be a smoking gun, however, it is anything but, at least according to Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel.

"I am growing increasingly frustrated by what I see of a misleading press campaign that suggests there is new DNA evidence that some way exonerates these three boys that a jury found guilty and whose appeals they all lost," McDaniel said. McDaniel says he does not see any evidence that would exonerate the three, and that he finds the confession of Jessie Misskelley, "detailed and compelling." Refusing to be intimidated by the media. McDaniel says, "I’ve seen nothing, at this point, that leads me to believe that Judge (David) Burnett should on the basis of newly discovered scientific evidence grant a new trial." Combined with Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe’s recent statement that he is not considering pardons or clemency for the three, McDaniel’s statement does not bode well for Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelley.

Columnist Mike Brummett said back in December 2007, "Beebe is too much the cautious man to free these three until and unless the argument becomes even more compelling. But Beebe also is the kind of man who would do the right thing eventually. I cannot imagine that he would let Echols get put to death. Commuting the death sentence would seem to be the least, the very least, the state ought to do. Then we could argue about whether he and the others ought to be in jail at all." (Read the entire article here)

For Supporters, clemency would spare the life of Damien Echols, but would do nothing to "Free the West Memphis Three." Inmates moved off death row tend to drop out of the public eye rather quickly. If the celebrity endorsements dry up, what will happen to the defense fund administered by Echols’s wife, Lorri Davis? Without the defense fund, or unless, as Brummett says, the "argument becomes even more compelling", Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley will become just three more indigent inmates whose legal appeals will have been exhausted.

The following article was written by Mark's sister Beth. Here she provides an older sibling's perspective of the man everyone thinks they know, but few actually do.

The year was 1957, I was almost 6 years old, and a new baby was coming into our family. Thinking back on this, I really don't remember "expecting" a baby - he just came! You see, my mom didn't talk about "those things". I'm sure I was married and expecting my first child before I heard her use the word "pregnant". I'm a teacher now and today a kindergarten student could explain the process - but not then, not in our house and not in 1957.

As the baby of the family, I wasn't so sure about this new brother. I had a big brother; who needs two? Eventually my sister and I grew used to him, and even enjoyed the times we could "dress him up". We had the real Baby Alive and just didn't know it. The only problem was that before long he grew up and that meant getting into our things!

There's a saying, You can't choose your relatives and I'm thankful that is true, because if choosing were an option, John Mark may not have been my brother. Let's see, the process may have been something like this:

Please read the list of the available babies and their futures and choose the baby boy you would like to have for a brother.

Available: A little boy, John Mark:

1. Will be born March 8, 1957, weighing 3lbs. 15oz., 23 inches long (whoa!, sounds long and skinny to me)

2. Will be a major pest, always blaming you for the messes in the house (hmmm, could I just get a puppy?)

3. In his teenage years he will manage to wreck a few cars and will begin experimenting with drugs. (oh no, I don't think this one is for me)

4. He will marry and experience problems, but don't worry this is just the beginning of trouble. (Whew, I think I'm right about checking "no")

5. He will remarry and have two step sons, adopting the youngest who will be murdered at the age of 8 (How horrible!!! No way I want to go through this!)

6. After the murder of his son, he will plunge further into the world of drugs, he will agree not once but twice to subject himself to the media/films so that not only you but the entire world will know about him but most will believe he's the murderer! (WHY am I still reading about this one? Who would want this? Certainly not me . . .)

Let me keep looking.

But in reality there is no checklist and I didn't get to check "no". Thank goodness! Look at what I would have missed. I would have missed having a brother who loved his family and wanted so much to do right that he never stopped fighting to survive, even when he made every bad decision a person could make. Most people only know Mark from film or book, but that's not Mark, not the Mark I grew up with and love. That's just the man who hit the very bottom, lost all, and was so addicted to drugs that he saw no hope.

I would have missed seeing that man come from the very end of his life to struggle and live - to fight his way (often literally) out of a living Hell - to the man he is today. That struggle is far from over, but the brother I've always known is coming back. Like many others, I will never forget May 5, 1993. I can remember in vivid detail where I was when I received the news on May 6th, how I felt, and the drive to West Memphis not knowing what to say or do. As all the families know (and anyone that has lost a child) there are no words. Christopher has been described by many writers as mischievous, hyperactive, and sometimes disobedient, but I will always remember him as that little guy who used to sit on my living room rug and draw. He would always say, "Do you know what this is?". Sometimes I didn't, and that's when he'd giggle; that's the wonderful innocence of children. That's what was taken away that tragic and unforgettable day.

If I could have checked "no", I could have missed the bad things in Mark's life and I could have avoided watching someone I love self-destruct but then I would have missed knowing Mark, the real Mark who loves his family, fights fiercely to protect them and understands about forgiveness. If you want to know Mark, you need look only at his heart.

Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Child Murders, the new book on the case that many are calling the crime of century, is nearing completion, and more details will be available soon. The book chronicles the life of Mark Byers, arguably the most controversial character in a case steeped in disagreement and debate. Long regarded as the chief alternate suspect in the eyes of the public, Mark continues to spark as much contention today as he did back in the days when he was shooting pumpkins and burning mock graves to vent his anger against the three men he was sure murdered his son. "People have tried to take me out", he said to the cameras in Revelations: Paradise Lost 2, "but I’m still here, Jessie, Jason, Damien. Those names ring in my ears daily. And I still hate you." More recently, however, his words and actions are angering those who have maintained that the so-called West Memphis Three belong in prison and that two juries in 1994 convicted the right people. So what has changed?

John Mark Byers has lived through the murder of his eight-year-old son Christopher and two other boys, the unexplained death of his wife Melissa three years later, spent fourteen years as a suspect in the public eye, and a hellish fifteen months in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. But a startling series of new developments - including the discovery of DNA evidence pointing to another victim’s stepfather - has turned Mark Byers into a staunch advocate for the release of the convicted killers, dubbed the West Memphis Three by their supporters. Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols, and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. have spent fifteen years in prison for a crime that Mark Byers no longer believes they committed. "It's the worst nightmare you could ever imagine", Byers said recently on Larry King Live. "I know the nightmare that the three in prison feel to be wrongly accused." He also told Johnny Dodd at People, "I was fooled for fourteen years. But now I know that an injustice was dealt upon these boys by the State of Arkansas."

When asked by Jason Miles of WMC-TV in Memphis, "Do you think [Steve Branch’s stepfather] Terry Hobbs killed your son and the two other boys?", there was only a slight hesitation in his response: "In my opinion", Byers said, "I do. If it takes the last breath in my body, [seeing Terry Hobbs in jail] that’s my goal." Regarding the convicted men - notably Echols, who sits on death row in the Varner Supermax prison in Grady, Arkansas, Byers says, "I want him to know I’m here for him."

During his interview for Larry King Live, Echols said of Byers, "I appreciate everything he’s been expressing lately. I’ve heard him make comments like that several times on different local news stations and I’ve heard people repeat that to me. And I really, really do appreciate that. It means a great deal."

Byers and Echols, once fierce adversaries, are now united in the fight to save Echols’s life. They have joined forces with a cadre of celebrity supporters - Winona Ryder, Johnny Depp, Jack Black, Natalie Maines, Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam), and Margaret Cho, to name a few - who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund a technological showdown with the State of Arkansas that promises to rival the O.J. Simpson and Sam Sheppard trials in drama and visibility. Forensic experts Dr. Michael Baden (O.J. Simpson), Dr. Vincent Di Maio (Scott Peterson), and former FBI profiler John Douglas (Mindhunter, Inside the Mind of the BTK Killer), have supplied the Echols defense team with enough horsepower to file a writ in federal court to have the conviction of Damien Echols overturned, or to grant a new trial. Echols’s attorneys have declared that they will be ready to file with the state courts by the middle of February, a step that was mandated by U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson, Jr., after which a hearing in federal court is expected in late spring.

Others are less enthusiastic about Byers’s change of heart. Amanda Hobbs, 19, daughter of Terry and Pam Hobbs, and the younger sister of victim Stevie Branch, thinks Byers is a hypocrite. "It makes me sick, it really does. It’s just crazy, you know? It’s like Mark Byers has been in these shoes for fourteen years and now he wants to try to put my father in those shoes?" Byers remains unmoved. "I personally believe it was a punishment crime that got out of hand."

But Terry Hobbs is still not considered a suspect by the West Memphis Police Department, though according to a CNN news story, WMPD Chief Bob Paudert says, "If they have DNA evidence that would give evidence that these three did not commit that crime, I would want to see it absolutely. I’m the first to say that if they have evidence to free those three I would support it 100 percent." The state prosecutor’s office has so far issued a "no comment" to reporters seeking information on the case.

Hobbs himself is stung by the accusations. "It’s hard as a parent to live with the loss of your home, of your wife, your family and then to have your friends and neighbors look at you and think, ‘Is there something else there?’ That hurts," he said.

But Mark Byers is haunted by the way he has felt for the last fifteen years. "I needed to hate somebody at that time in my life and I was blinded by rage, and anger, and grief", he told Miles, referring to a time not too long ago when he had no reason to believe anything other than what the state of Arkansas told him during the 1994 criminal trials. The new evidence has convinced him otherwise. Only time will tell what this uniting of the strangest of bedfellows will bring.