By John Brummett
We're ending not just a year, you know, but a decade. So media outlets are selecting their persons of the decade based entirely on subjectivity and without any clear rules.
I like subjectivity and I positively adore the absence of rules. So here is one man’s list of the persons of the decade in Arkansas, purely for argumentative purposes.
8. Damien Echols. Celebrity forces worldwide, brought together largely by the efforts of his charming wife,
rallied around his professed innocence and he became a very good Death Row media interview.
He’s going to walk free eventually, I’ll wager.
To read the full list, click here.
Arkansasnews.com
Posted on 19 December 2009
Posted on 29 December 2009
By John Brummett
It says so in the state constitution. A sitting judge who seeks a
non-judicial political office vacates the judgeship automatically when he
files for the other office.
Surely you see the wisdom.
Let’s say a circuit judge was running for governor. You wouldn’t want him
weighing matters of justice in the context of personal campaign
considerations. At the very least, you’d have a glaring appearance of a
conflict.
Let’s say you were a defendant in his court. You might wonder if it would be
a good idea to contribute to his gubernatorial campaign.
The only reason retired Circuit Judge David Burnett of Osceola may sit as a
specially assigned judge for post-conviction issues arising in the famous
case of the so-called West Memphis Three is that the filing period for the
state Senate won’t open until March 1. So Burnett has merely declared his
intention to run next year for a term-limited vacancy arising in the state
Senate. He keeps right on judging.
There’s a rule of judicial conduct that requires a judge to avoid even any
appearance of impropriety. But Burnett has disregarded that and the Arkansas
Supreme Court has dismissed perfunctorily a request from a lawyer for one of
the West Memphis Three to remand the issue for Burnett to reconsider his
decision to stay on the case.
Burnett retired this year after a long career that found him, in 1994,
presiding over the original trials in which Damien Echols was convicted of
capital murder and given the death penalty while Jason Baldwin and Jessie
Misskelley were sentenced to life in prison.
They were found guilty in the mutilation and slayings of three young boys in
West Memphis in 1993. The strongest evidence was that Misskelley, with an IQ
of 72, had made contradictory confessions to police. The community was
horrified and the three defendants, then in their late teens, were weird and
seemed to have an interest in the occult.
After retiring in January, Burnett agreed to appointment as a special judge
solely for post-conviction issues that are still percolating from these
highly publicized West Memphis cases. The reasoning was that the files were
so thick that a new judge would have faced a mountainous learning curve.
Burnett should have had the good grace to decline this appointment if he
knew he was running for the state Senate. And he certainly should not have
whined to the Jonesboro Sun in tones perhaps suggesting prejudice.
But there it was Sunday — Burnett telling a Sun reporter that, yes, he was
intending to run for the Senate; that he was sick and tired of this West
Memphis case; and that he regretted letting documentary filmmakers into the
courtroom in 1994 because their “Paradise Lost” turned out to be biased for
the defendants.
An appellant might feel better if the judge did not tell the newspaper he
was sick of the case.
Burnett admitted his misjudgment in a phone conversation Monday. “I
shouldn’t have said that, and I’m sorry,” he said.
Surely you see the problem with a declared state Senate candidate serving as
a judge. Is Burnett getting quoted as a judge or as a man trying to defend
himself in the context of his candidacy for the state Senate?
If Burnett rules against these defendants in their latest pleading, will
they have reason to be satisfied that they got full and fair consideration?
I shouldn’t think so.
Already there is an article in the University of Arkansas Law Review saying
Burnett erred in denying Echols a new trial on new evidence that there was
no DNA evidence putting him at the scene. Burnett said the absence of
evidence was not innocence.
It might not have served a state Senate candidacy well to side with a Death
Row inmate.
Burnett told me Monday the political vulnerabilities work both ways. I told
him he was thus in a fix of his own making. He said he guessed so.
http://arkansasnews.com/2009/12/29/judging-david-burnetts-blunders/
By George Jared
JONESBORO — Judge David Burnett will not decide before the end of the year
if two men convicted of the 1993 slayings of three West Memphis 8-year-olds
will get new trials.
A decision in the Rule 37 hearings for Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley
Jr. was expected by the end of the year, but Burnett said he’s given
attorneys until Jan. 15 to submit briefs. Burnett said he will rule shortly
after the briefs are submitted.
A controversial and ridiculed figure in the so-called “West Memphis Three”
saga, Burnett said he’s grown weary over the interest of the national and
international media in the case. He’s also remaining mum about his ultimate
decision.
“I can tell you one thing, I’m tired of this case,” the judge said.
The bodies of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Steven Branch were found
in a West Memphis ditch on May 6, 1993, one day after they were reported
missing.
A month later Misskelley, Baldwin and Damien Echols were arrested and
charged with capital murder. Prosecutors said the then-teens had occult
beliefs that led them to subdue the boys near the ditch.
Misskelley confessed to police, and he confessed several more times after
being convicted in 1994. Since then he has recanted those statements —
Misskelley, who has an I.Q. of 72, said that police coerced him. Each of the
confessions offered slightly different, sometimes competing versions of what
happened to the victims, according to court documents.
During Misskelley’s trial and the subsequent Baldwin-Echols trial, Burnett
allowed documentary filmmakers to record the proceedings. In 1996 the
documentary “Paradise Lost” was released by HBO, bringing international
attention to the case.
Burnett said he erred in allowing the filmmakers into the courtroom — “the
producers of the film were very one-sided, and it was a mistake,” the judge
said.
The filmmakers argued that many of the things Misskelley described in his
confessions — the time of the murders, the victims being choked and how they
were bound — proved to be false. Misskelley also stated that two of the boys
were sodomized, but the state medical examiner was unable to find any
evidence of it. A slew of defense forensic pathologists affirmed that when
they testified at the recent hearings.
Misskelley’s confession was the key evidence in a case where little forensic
evidence was found.
The judge has been vilified for the convictions and for not granting Echols
a new trial after his Rule 37 hearing in 1999.
Judge’s response
Burnett pointed out that despite the intense criticism of how the case was
handled, the Arkansas Supreme Court has affirmed every decision he’s made in
the trials.
“I’m not ashamed of any ruling I made in the 27 years I sat on the bench,”
he said.
The judge also said that the defense’s evidence in the 1999 hearings
ultimately proved false. The defense argued that human bite marks were on
the faces of the victims that didn’t match teeth impressions of the
convicted, but authorities said no bite marks have ever been verified.
Burnett also said two juries found the West Memphis Three guilty in court —
not him.
“There’s been a lot of spin in this case, for sure,” he said.
Since the guilty verdict, Echols sought another trial based on 2007 DNA
testing results that indicated none of the West Memphis Three’s DNA was
found at the scene. Burnett denied that motion, saying the absence of
evidence does not prove innocence.
Being the judge in such a high-profile case has hurt his reputation, Burnett
admitted. Earlier this year he said he was considering a run for the state
Senate, but his involvement in the case might prove to be a liability. He
still plans to seek political office, he said.
Although he retired as a Circuit Court judge at the end of last year,
Burnett was appointed as a special judge to finish off the work he started
16 years ago.
If Burnett denies the motion for new trials, that ruling will almost
certainly be appealed to higher courts. No matter what he decides, Burnett
said he knows the sensationalism will continue.
“This case will never end, no matter what,” the judge said. “It’ll go on
forever.”
By Stephanie Chen, CNN
December 28, 2009 10:44 a.m. EST
(CNN) -- There was a time that Pamela Hobbs believed justice had been
served for her young son's murder.
But 16 years after the mutilations and killings of three 8-year-old Cub
Scouts, including her son, she has more doubts than ever.
Tear-stricken and angry, Pamela Hobbs sat through the original trial of the
three accused teens -- Damien Echols, 18; Jessie Misskelley Jr., 17, and
Jason Baldwin, 16.
They were convicted of murdering her son, Stevie Branch, and two other neighborhood boys,
Michael Moore and Christopher Byers. The second-graders' bodies were found bruised and
mutilated in a West Memphis, Arkansas, ditch; their arms and legs were bound by shoe laces.
The killers became dubbed the West Memphis 3.
When interviewed by media and documentary crews after the trial, Hobbs
believed justice had been served. Misskelley and Baldwin had life sentences.
Echols was on death row.
But recent developments -- including new eyewitness statements and DNA
evidence from the defense -- have uprooted her faith in those prosecutions.
Once a staunch believer that the teens were guilty, now she says the teens
accused of killing her son in the West Memphis 3 deserve a new trial.
"I wanted to believe in our justice system," said Hobbs, now 45. She moved
to Blytheville, Arkansas, shortly after the 1993 trial. "But time heals all
wounds, and you start looking at things differently."
Her public change of heart has been supported by new evidence presented by
the defense over the past few years. In 2007, DNA and forensic evidence
tests revealed no physical evidence at the crime scene that linked the three
teens to murders. The evidence was presented to the state.
Furthermore, DNA that might belong to two other men was found in the knot
used to tie Christopher.
One of the men is Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Stevie, the defense says.
In 1993, such advanced DNA testing had not been available, attorneys said.
The defense continues to argue the results of the DNA evidence. In
September, the Arkansas Supreme Court received an appeal from Echols,
requesting a new trial after the lower courts denied his request to submit
new DNA evidence. This month, an Arkansas Law Review article
stated Echols should be granted a new trial based on the 2007 DNA
evidence.
The Arkansas Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments for a new trial
for Echols in February, say officials representing him.
Three eye witnesses, who resided next to one of the victims, filed
affidavits in October with the Arkansas Supreme Court. The witnesses said
they saw the second-graders with Terry Hobbs the night before the bodies
were found by police.
The statement from the witnesses contradicted Hobbs' statements to police
and in court that he never saw his stepson, Stevie, on the day of the
murder.
"They [authorities] never really did any investigation," said Dennis
Riordan, Echols' defense attorney out of San Francisco, California. "They
never interviewed Hobbs. The fact that the witnesses saw him, and they
realized for the first time, it was very significant."
Pamela Hobbs was divorced from Terry Hobbs in 2004 because of marital
problems stemming from the pain that followed her son's death, she said. She
declined to comment on whether she thought her ex-husband saw the 8-year-old
boys.
Hobbs has adamantly rejected the defense's allegations that he saw his
stepson that day. Hobbs, 51, who still lives in West Memphis, said the
defense is attempting to make him the target because Echols is on death row.
There is no execution date set.
He raises the question many skeptics of the three men's innocence have
echoed: Why would the eyewitness evidence surface 16 years later? Why didn't
the witnesses come forward sooner?
To this day, Terry Hobbs says he believes the rightful killers are in
prison.
The State's Attorneys Office and prosecutors won't comment about the
defense's claims. Mike Walden, prosecuting attorney for Craighead County,
where the original trial took place, said the affidavits are weak.
"I think most people will tell you these affidavits are insufficient to
justify filing charges against someone else," Walden said about the three
new eyewitnesses presented by the defense. "They don't contain enough
evidence to enable a prosecuting attorney to make a charging position."
Critics of the defense attorneys say there has been too much finger-pointing
over the past 16 years. The defense "can't get their story straight," said
Tracy Ripple, who started a Web site criticizing supporters of the West
Memphis 3.
West Memphis Police Department declined to comment. An officer said they
were told by the state's Attorney General's office not to comment on the
West Memphis 3 case.
During the original trial in 1993, prosecutors argued the three teens were
part of a satanic cult when they murdered the three children. They said
punctures and cut marks on the victims were argued to be to be part of a
sadistic ritual. After the trial, some forensic examiners argued those marks
were animal bite marks.
The prosecution relied on the confession of Misskelley, a 17-year-old with
learning disabilities and an IQ of 70. He confessed after an untaped,
three-hour interrogation by police without his parents or an attorney
present. Misskelley later recanted his confession.
The teens, now men serving time in the Arkansas penitentiary system, have
maintained their innocence. They have tried appealing, arguing that they
weren't adequately represented in the original trial. Echols remains on
death row, and no execution date has been set.
Pamela Hobbs hasn't been the only parent of the victims to shift to the side
of the West Memphis 3 supporters.
Mark Byers, the father of Christopher, lives in Millington, Tennessee. He
said he began to think the three men might be innocent, particularly after
the 2007 DNA tests results were released. His wife, Melissa, passed away in
1996.
After the murders, Byers announced to the media fervently that he believed
the West Memphis 3 were guilty. But by 2005, he began to question the
original trial. He said parts of Misskelley's confession did not match up
with actual crime. For example, the confession talks about committing the
crime in the woods, but medical examiners found few traces of blood in the
woods.* *
"The worst part about it is the three real victims that deserve justice, the
three 8-year-old children have not been given justice," Byers said. "They
got a hack job for a police investigation. It was a rush to find someone who
they said did this."
Todd and Diana Moore, parents of Michael, say the West Memphis 3 are guilty.
Todd Moore, now divorced from Diana Moore, says he can't believe the
eyewitness affidavits because they are based on memories from 16 years ago.
His ex-wife declined to comment.
"They [witnesses] may have seen something," said Moore, who now lives in
Marion, Arkansas. "But May 5, 1993, wasn't the day."
The murders of the three boys remain etched into the community even years
after the trial ended. The case inspired two HBO documentaries, "Paradise
Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" and "Paradise Lost 2."
As years passed, the West Memphis 3 continued to live in the media
spotlight. The case gained notoriety among celebrities such as the Dixie
Chicks and actress Winona Ryder, who have publicly said the three men should
have a new trial.
Over the years, the parents of the three boys have watched the headlines
return. Some hope for a new trial for the three men, who have languished
behind bars for their young adult years behind bars. And other parents pray
the men will stay locked up for good.* *
"I want someone to put a stop to this," said Terry Hobbs. He fondly recalls
the memories with his stepson -- the two of them swimming in the backyard
pool.
"I'm tired of this stuff. No one understands or cares what this does to us
as parents over and over again."
Terry Hobbs, stepfather of West Memphis murder victim Stevie Branch,
thought he was in for a big payday after filing a federal defamation suit
against Natalie Pasdar (Maines) of the Dixie Chicks for comments she
made during a press conference in Little Rock in 2007.
Unfortunately for Hobbs, Judge Brian Miller of the Federal District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas wasted little time in summarily
dismissing the lawsuit, but not before Hobbs was deposed for two days by
Maines’s attorneys. In the past, Hobbs had stated that he never saw the
three boys the day they were murdered, but during depositions taken on July
21, 2009, he reiterated for the first time under oath that he never saw his
stepson, Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers or Michael Moore at any time on
May 5, 1993.
“It’s your testimony that you did not see Stevie Branch at all the day of
May 5th of 1993. Correct?” Hobbs’s answer: “Correct.” “Did you see Stevie at
all that day, May 5th?” Answer: “No, I did not.” “Did you see any of the
three boys that day?” Answer: “No, I did not. No I never seen Stevie that
day.”
Hobbs’s actions and whereabouts the night of the murders have always been
suspect, and his explanations have never been consistent. Now, three new
eyewitnesses have submitted sworn affidavits to the Arkansas Supreme Court
contradicting Hobbs’s own words under oath and identifying him as the last
person to have custody of the children immediately before their
disappearance and murders. According to these eyewitnesses, Hobbs lied when
he stated that he had not seen the three children that evening. Their sworn
affidavits state unequivocally that Hobbs was with the three children at
approximately 6:30 p.m.
Hobbs’s statements under oath are of immense importance to the innocence
claims of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. Hobbs’s alibi
is completely undermined by these witnesses.
Other statements taken under oath during discovery in the lawsuit
included those of Pam Hobbs, her sister and mother; David Jacoby, Hobbs’s
friend, whose own DNA was found at the crime scene; and Mildred French, a
woman who was sexually assaulted by Terry Hobbs. These witnesses paint a
rather shocking picture of the life of Terry Hobbs, which not only raises
questions of his guilt, but also points to the actual innocence of the West
Memphis 3.
Terry Hobbs’s DNA was found at the crime scene of the murders of Stevie
Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. He was last seen with the three
boys immediately before they disappeared and were murdered. Stevie Branch’s
mother, Pam Hobbs, believes that her husband at the time, Terry Hobbs, was
involved in the murder of her child.
Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley had strong alibis of
their whereabouts the evening of the murders. They did not know the three
children, never were seen with them, did not live near them or have any
connection whatsoever to their families. Their DNA was not at the crime
scene. A knife was not used to kill the three boys according to the
country’s leading forensic pathologists, and most of the wounds on their
bodies were postmortem animal bites, completely contradicting the
prosecution’s own theory of the causes of death.
Natalie Maines is a hero. Not only did she come to Little Rock,
Arkansas, to help publicize the new DNA and forensic evidence uncovered
in the effort to free the West Memphis 3, but she made a courageous decision
to defend against Terry Hobbs’s defamation suit. She, and the Dixie Chicks,
could have easily paid Hobbs off to avoid any embarrassment over the bogus
defamation claims. But they chose to defend against his allegations, not in
their own self -interest, but in the interests of Damien, Jason
and Jessie.
Some deride the motives of famous people when they come forward and speak
out on issues of importance. Natalie Maines, more than most, knows the
perils of taking an unpopular public position. What she has done in the
efforts to free the West Memphis 3 is nothing short of selfless.
Lonnie Soury
freewestmemphis3.org
Dear Friends & Supporters:
Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin have spent their entire adult lives in prison for a crime they did not commit. They were tragically convicted based on innuendo, fear, hysteria and a false confession. In October 2007 a 500-page motion was filed in federal court on behalf of Damien Echols. The federal court agreed to hear the case but asked that the state of Arkansas review it first. This motion includes DNA testing on dozens of pieces of evidence, analysis from the nation's leading forensic science experts, other solid scientific evidence and compelling witness affidavits—all evidence indicating that all three, now men, are innocent of the murders for which they were wrongfully convicted in 1993.
Now even more new evidence of their innocence has been brought to light, including a sworn affidavit by a prominent former Arkansas prosecutor that the jury foreman in Damien and Jason's original trial lied to get on the jury and illegally introduced Jessie's coerced false confession into deliberations. Three witnesses have stepped forward claiming they saw Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Stevie Branch, with the children at 6:30pm on the night the children disappeared. His DNA and the DNA of a friend he was with that very evening have been identified by the recent DNA test results as being at the crime scene.
With new crime scene DNA evidence that clears Damien, Jason and Jessie, and points to others, as well as the outrageous allegations of juror misconduct, Damien's case is now being considered on appeal by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Jason and Jessie's cases are being reviewed by Judge David Burnett, they are seeking a new trial based upon ineffective legal counsel.
Thanks to so many of you for getting us to this point. Without your help, we would not be on the verge of finally securing justice for Damien, Jessie and Jason. We urgently need more of you. We need your help to make sure this evidence is fully considered. With your help we can right a terrible, terrible wrong.
Please makes checks out to:
Damien Echols Defense Fund
PO Box 1216
Little Rock, AR 72203
Or donate through Arkansas Take Action (our 501c3 sponsor) via Google. Please spread the word of this injustice!
Thank you so very much,
Lorri Davis and the defense teams for Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols & Jessie Misskelley
The Godfather of Heavy Metal, Ozzy Osbourne, autographed an “I AM OZZY” book for supporters Mary K & Eoin L to raise money for the defense fund of three wrongfully-imprisoned Arkansas men aka The West Memphis 3. The autograph reads: To: Free the WM3 Ozzy Osbourne
Included with the book will be the three images of Ozzy signing the book taken by Mary and Eoin. The Skeleton Key auction will last for 16 days—from December 11 (Echols’s 35th birthday) to December 27, 2009—one day for each year the West Memphis Three have spent behind bars. The starting bid for the book is been set at $40.
Just a gentle reminder to all WM3 supporters to send Damien a card or a letter for his birthday. He's been in prison for 16 years for crimes he didn't commit, and on death row since he was convicted in 1994. The food the ADC serves the inmates in the Supermax facility is flavor and nutrition-free so if possible, consider sending some money to his ADC commissary account so he can buy nutritious food and vitamins. His online ADC number is 000931. (Use this link to download an ADC deposit slip to mail a US postal money order, checks are not accepted. Send money orders to the ADC's address in Pine Bluff, they'll be returned to you if you send one to Damien in a card or letter.)
Don't forget to address all letters and packages with Damien's ADC number as they won't deliver to him without it!
Damien Echols #SK931
Varner Unit
PO Box 400
Grady Arkansas 71644
Thank you,
KGBL
Posted by Max Brantley
David Mitchell, writing in the Arkansas Law Review, argues that a circuit judge used too narrow a standard for considering post-conviction relief based on new evidence in the West Memphis Three murder case. Mitchell concludes that a new trial was warranted. Let's hope the state Supreme Court reads the Arkansas Law Review.
A news release summarizes:
The Arkansas Law Review, a publication of the University of Arkansas School of Law in cooperation with the Arkansas Bar Association, has published a lengthy and scholarly article reviewing the legal issues surrounding the innocence claims of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley.
New evidence in the case revealed that while no DNA of the convicted young men was found at the crime scene, DNA from Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Stevie Branch, was found in the ligature binding the hands and feet of one of the other children. In addition, some of the country’s leading forensic pathologists have concluded that most of the wounds found on the bodies were, in fact, the result of post mortem animal bites, and not knife wounds, a belief upon which the prosecution based its case.
The well-researched article by David S. Mitchell, Jr., Lock ’Em Up and Throw Away the Key: The “West Memphis Three” and Arkansas’s Statute for Post-Conviction Relief Based on New Scientific Evidence (Volume 62, number 3), reviews the decision by Craighead County Circuit Judge David Burnett, who denied the West Memphis 3’s request for a new trial based upon new DNA and other evidence. In September 2008, Judge Burnett summarily denied Echols’s, Baldwin’s and Misskelley’s respective motions without granting a hearing.
According to the Law Review article, the circuit court employed a very narrow interpretation of the post-conviction relief (DNA) statute (section 16-112-208-(b) (e) to deny Damien Echols and the West Memphis 3 a new trial.
“A close examination of the legal and factual issues presented by Echols’s motion for a new trial reveals the circuit court’s failures on each level, particularly the way the circuit court’s interpretation of the statute eviscerated its purpose.”
“After evaluating the legal arguments presented by the State and Echols on each of these issues, this comment reaches the conclusion that the trial court erred in denying Echols’s motion for a new trial.”
Echols’s case meets the standards set forth in the Arkansas statute as well as the intention of the legislature when the statute was passed in 2001. “The court may then grant a motion for a new trial or resentencing if the DNA test results, when considered with all evidence in the case regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at trial, would establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in acquittal. The new evidence is sufficient to establish that any reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt as to Echols’s guilt…”
He concluded, “the circuit court failed in its interpretation of Arkansas’s post-conviction relief statute…it also failed to meet the Arkansas Legislature’s goal of accounting for the ability of new technology to accomplish the mission of criminal law –to punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent.”
The circuit court reasoned that the legislative history of the statute indicated Echols’s testing results were “inconclusive” and required that the motion be denied under section 208 (b). Accordingly, the court gave great significance to the fact that the DNA testing was ordered under a prior version of the statute that allowed that DNA tests could be conducted when the evidence had the “scientific potential” to be materially relevant to the claim of relief. The 2005 statute had a stricter standard that allows only for testing when the results could raise a reasonable probability that the person did not commit the offense. In either interpretation of the statute, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley meet the standards for a new trial.
The legal community, nationally as well as in Arkansas, has emerged as an important ally in the effort to obtain a new trial for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. The Arkansas Law Review article comes on the heels of the support of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Northwestern University School of Law’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, who jointly submitted an Amicus Brief to the Arkansas Supreme Court on behalf of Echols’s appeal for a new trial.
I am very happy that the United States District Court dismissed all claims by Terry Hobbs against Natalie Pasdar (Maines) and the Dixie Chicks, in which he alleged he was accused of murdering his stepson Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers.
Federal Judge Brian Miller, after a thoughtful review of the evidence, ruled that Natalie Pasdar clearly demonstrated her intention to ensure that any remarks and writings she made on the legal aspects of the West Memphis 3 case came from court filings and legal papers.
My heartfelt appreciation to Natalie and the Dixie Chicks for their support for a new trial for Damien, Jason and Jessie. May the Arkansas Supreme Court grant the West Memphis 3 their freedom in their appeals currently before the court.
-- Lorri Davis, wife of Damien Echols
Links from my Neighborhood
Arkansas Take Action is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizati...
Random Asian Kid Wears Rand...
Canada Day. We caught up with him at a hot dog stand on a...
