Are the west Memphis three guilty?

Answer 1

They have been found guilty, but there is considerable debate as to whether or not they are actually guilty. The prevailing public opinion of those who are aware of the case is that they are either not guilty, or at the very least, the burden of proof had not been met. It is alleged that the investigation was conducted with a bias to confirm the guilt of Damien Echols, and the investigation, prosecution, and conviction were the result of "Satanic Panic."

Those who feel they are guilty cite the confessions of defendant Jessie Misskelley. The arrests of Jessie Misskelley, Jason Baldwin, and Damien Echols were the result of his first confession to detectives, in which he implicated himself and his co-defendants, as the perpetrators in the murders of 8-year-olds Michael Moore, Steven Branch, and Christopher Byers.

This confession has been criticized by experts in the arena of false confessions, as well as supporters of the West Memphis Three (WM3), due to the leading nature of the questions asked by the detectives, as well as the inaccuracies in Jessie's account of the events and details regarding the murders.

After Jessie's conviction, in which he was sentenced to life plus 40 years, he gave incriminating statements to his attorney and to the prosecutors, who were hoping to get him to testify against his co-defendants. At the time of these statements, there was widespread media speculation, bolstered by statements made by the prosecutors, that Jessie's sentence might be reduced to 40 years in exchange for his testimony.

An unbiased third party, an attorney appointed by Judge Burnett, was charged with the task of determining what Jessie's true wishes were. Judge Burnett offered use immunity for his testimony. Jessie ultimately declined to testify.

Since their conviction, six forensic experts for the defense have testified that the "knife injuries" were the result of postmortem animal predation.

As the case currently stands, the WM3 are still in prison, but apart from the finding by forensic experts regarding animal predation, new DNA evidence (hair) has been presented in the case, which does not link the WM3 to the crime, but does not exclude Terry Hobbs (the stepfather of victim Steven Branch) and Hobbs' best friend David Jacoby as the sources. The rate of exclusion for these DNA samples are 98.5% and 93%, respectively. Judge Burnett of the circuit court, and the original trial judge in this case, denied the defense's motion for a new evidentiary hearing in 2008. The decision was appealed to the Arkansas State Supreme Court (ASSC), and in a unanimous decision, the ASSC made the following finding on November 4, 2010:

Because we hold that the circuit court erroneously interpreted the Arkansas DNA testing statutes, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing, at which the circuit court shall hear Echols's motion for a new trial and consider the DNA-test results "with all other evidence in the case regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at trial" to determine if Echols has "establish[ed] by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in acquittal."

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208(e)(3) (Repl. 2006). We hold that because the circuit court interpreted the statutes in question incorrectly, it applied the wrong legal standards to Echols's motion. Furthermore, the statute requires that the court "promptly set an early hearing on the petition and response" unless "the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Id. § 16-112-205. Echols's petition and the files and records of the proceeding do not conclusively show he is entitled to no relief, and the circuit court should have held an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing and reconsideration of the motion in light of the proper interpretation of the statutes.

In summary, it means that the WM3 will receive a new evidentiary hearing, in which the circuit court will hear all evidence in the case and decide whether or not the defense was able to establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in acquittal. If the judge makes that finding, they will be given a new trial, and the state will have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in light of the new exculpatory evidence.