Comments on: A matter of injustice Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: tarapatricia Sun, 19 May 2013 08:41:09 +0000 Isn’t it amazing? Prosecutors are so sure of their convictions, yet in the Morton and MacDonald cases, prosecutors have fought the defendant’s right to test DNA evidence, and have kept them in prison for many more years. What are they are afraid of if they were so sure of Morton’s and MacDonald’s guilt? Cover up, anyone?

By: tarapatricia Sun, 19 May 2013 08:22:16 +0000 The belief that Dr. MacDonald, (or anyone) would stab himself in the chest is a bogus one set forth by army investigators. It’s funny how being a doctor is another reason that would point to his being guilty (the army would want you to believe.) It is not “universally accepted”, Dr. MacDonald had to have two operations on his chest and spent 9 days in ICU. There was never a motive for him to commit this crime no matter what the army, Joe McGinniss or Bob Stevenson would like you to think. The crime scene was a complete mess and the investigation was botched. Prosecutors Jim Blackburn and Brian Murtagh withheld evidence that could have cleared Dr. MacDonald of this crime. The army illegally pursued Dr. MacDonald when he was released from the army and told Freddy Kassab untruthful stories to get him to change his mind about Dr. MacDonald. I look forward to the day when he will be cleared like Michael Morton and hope the prosecutors in his trial will also have to pay.

By: blinkoncrime Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:36:15 +0000 1. This article is replete with factual errors on the WM3 case and the MacDonald case. If I were to include a case, I would at the very least strive to get the date of the murders right- It was February 17, 1970, as an example.

2. The WM3 are all enjoying triple murder convictions via Alford plea or if they screamed “I effing did it you idiots” in the street. Which, btw, I have heard Miskelley does daily.

I don’t like to see this kind of poor research or bias on reuters.

By: GregCDay Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:15:14 +0000 I’m not sure why the MacDonald case is listed here; I’ve never before heard that he was considered innocent by some. MacDonald’s case ran through the legal system for some nine years, and regardless of possible Brady violations—such violations are frequently, though inexcusably, the only way that “legitimate” convictions are obtained—MacDonald surely murdered his wife and two daughters. The precise, surgical wound he suffered was made with a scalpel-sharp “weapon”, notable for its non-lethal placement; Dr. MacDonald was, after all, a Princeton-trained physician. The wound is universally accepted to have been self-inflicted.

One point Mr. Bonner makes is right on the money. The attention paid to the case of the West Memphis Three (though not to their victims) was, and continues to be, “inordinate.” A rational person, one who isn’t caught up in the hype of three HBO documentaries (the Paradise Lost Series), one independent documentary (West of Memphis, a film by Amy Berg and Peter Jackson, one that dubiously credits Damien Echols and wife Lorri Davis as “producers”), and the upcoming film version of Mara Leveritt’s Devil’s Knot (directed by Atom Egoyan and starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth), would be able to see the smoke and mirrors propaganda for what it is.

The facts are clear. None of the three killers had alibis. One, okay. Two, perhaps. But all three? Jessie Misskelley’s alibi was destroyed by the prosecution at trial. (The details are in my book, Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three.) The other two didn’t even offer alibis at trial. In 2009, at Jason Baldwin’s Rule 37 hearing, his former attorney Paul Ford stated that if Baldwin had had an alibi that would stand up in court, he would have offered it.

There’s also the matter of Damien Echols’s black trench coat. Even a casual observer, if they knew nothing else about Echols, would have known that come winter or summer, Echols wore his beloved trench coat virtually everywhere he went. Police should have considered it supremely important to find that coat; there was a better than even chance that Echols was wearing it the night of the murders. So where is it? On the stand Echols said he didn’t know. “My parents must have it.” There is no record of the police searching for this critical piece of evidence, and its disappearance was, to say the least, convenient.

Though admittedly troublesome, Jessie Misskelley’s four confessions must be given great weight. He had many facts wrong, but more important are those he added. For example, he told police during his initial confession that he had actually chased down Michael Moore and brought him back to Echols and Baldwin (Moore’s murder was considered premeditated by the court). This was a strange detail to include without prompting, and was one which in Misskelley’s mind seemed exculpatory (“Michael, uh, Moore took off running, so I chased him and grabbed him and held him, till they got there and then I left [emphasis added]).

Further, he told his attorney, Dan Stidham, and Prosecutor Brent Davis on February 17, 1994—just after his conviction on one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder—that he witnessed the victims being thrown in the creek (all three boys were bound with shoelaces), and that one victim was “moving like a worm.” In other words, he was still alive when he was placed in the water. This is consistent with the findings of the medical examiner that two of the victims had water in their lungs, proof that they were still breathing (though barely) when they were tossed into the ditch. This detail provided by Misskelley also has the sound of being made by someone who saw it happening.

It’s time that we understand the case of the West Memphis Three in light of the facts, not through the lens of celebrities and their fans.

Greg Day
Author Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three

By: JL4 Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:07:49 +0000 Maybe this article will help. I hope so.

By: MoBioph Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:47:20 +0000 So far, then, the actual murderer of Dorothy Ely Edwards, the elderly victim in this case, has gone free, unless, in the meantime, he (assuming the murderer was male) has been convicted and punished for another crime of similar severity. Even if the actual murderer were still alive and finally charged with the crime today, nearly 31 years after the murder, it would be hard to argue that either public protection or justice had been well served. In such cases as these, the injustice suffered by the wrongly convicted is compounded with the injustice of ensuring that the guilty party will remain free from pursuit and thus free to continue prying upon the public. It seems like institutionalized accessory to murder.

By: Greenspan2 Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:25:27 +0000 If America has true equality under the law…..

Well, that explains it, doesn’t it.