New - updated 2004

A point-by-point analysis of the evidence
by Chris Worthington

"Eleven." -- Gary Gitchell, West Memphis Police Chief of Detectives 
(when asked by the media before the trial to rate his department's case against Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley on a scale from one to ten.)

"There was a remarkable lack of physical evidence against anybody." -- Prosecutor John Fogleman
(when asked about the lack of physical evidence against the West Memphis Three - Phoenix Times, 11/14/96.)

"Yeah, I'm innocent." -- Jason Baldwin
(after being asked by the judge if he had anything to say at his sentencing.)

Who's right?

Decide for yourself. This site will take a critical look at the evidence which put -- and keeps --The West Memphis Three in prison for The Robin Hood Hills Murders. We will use The Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinions affirming their convictions as the source for that evidence. There will be no doctoring of how the Opinions describe the evidence, and none of what they mention directly involving Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, or Jessie Misskelley, Jr. will be omitted. We will examine the evidence the same way the juries at the original trials were supposed to. Is there any reason not to believe it? How relevant is it? Is it at all conclusive? In addition, we will consider whether information the juries were not allowed to hear and new evidence which has recently come to light might have changed their viewpoint. Excerpts from the Supreme Court Opinion will be represented in bold type. When we are finished, you can decide if there is a case against The West Memphis Three. This is a different way to think of this site. Most of the Free The WM3 website tries to explain the real reasons Damien was sentenced to death and Jason and Jessie to life in prison by Arkansas . . . Satanic panic . . .a rush to judgment . . . narrow-minded prejudice...

This page will show you how the prosecution got away with it....

PART I -- THE EVIDENCE AGAINST JESSIE MISSKELLEY, JR.

1) JESSIE MISSKELLEY'S CONFESSION

A) EVIDENCE JESSIE MISSKELLEY HAD CRIME KNOWLEDGE UNAVAILABLE TO PUBLIC
B) DAMIEN ECHOLS SPOTTED NEAR CRIME SCENE
C) EVIDENCE MISSKELLEY ATTENDED ESBATS WITH ACCOMPLICES
D) EVIDENCE ONE VICTIM HAD BEEN STALKED
E) JESSIE MISSKELLEY CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES BALDWIN'S CLOTHING
F) FIBER EVIDENCE LINKING ACCOMPLICES TO CRIME

The Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion in the Misskelley (A) case runs 24 pages, addressing 41 separate articles of appeal filed by Jessie's lawyers, Daniel Stidham and Gregory Crow. The majority of these appeals revolve around legal issues which are beyond the scope of this page. They include arguments under the categories of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Appeal and Error (referring to in-trial appeals), Search and Seizure, Witness Qualification, Constitutional Law, Juvenile Law -- Applicable Codes, and Jury Instruction. We can largely confine this survey to evidentiary appeals, especially the one relating to whether the verdict is supported by "substantial evidence," which the court defines as evidence which would have allowed the jury to reach its conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. This -- as opposed to the better known concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- is the standard by which appellate courts, at least in Arkansas, are guided in rendering their opinions. Many of the evidentiary appeals need not be discussed, as they merely mention in the context of larger legal issues evidence which is more fully developed elsewhere in the Opinion, or because they appeal in regards to evidence bearing upon alternate suspect to the crimes; or because they appeal in regards to evidence bearing upon Echols or Baldwin, whose case evidence will be covered in Part II.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the Court is not evaluating any of this evidence as to its worth or veracity -- they repeatedly remind readers that weighing evidence was solely the jury's job. The Court's only concern is whether these items of evidence were admitted properly and if they could have been of substantial aid to the jurors in the job of reaching their verdicts.

THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MATERIAL

It is during the Supreme Court's review of whether Judge Burnett was correct in not ordering a directed verdict of Not Guilty at the close of the state's case that the Opinion addresses the question of whether the state had met its burden of presenting "substantial evidence" of the defendant's guilt. Boldface type indicates the text is taken directly from the Opinion.

1) JESSIE MISSKELLEY'S CONFESSION
From pages 10-12 of the Misskelley Opinion, all contiguous: The statements [in Jessie Misskelley's confession] were the strongest evidence offered against the appellant at trial. In fact, they were virtually the only evidence, all other testimony and exhibits serving primarily as corroboration.

The statements were obtained in a question-and-answer format rather than in a narrative form. However, we will set out the substance of the statements in such a way as to reveal with clarity the appellant's description of the crime:

In the early morning hours of May 5, 1993, the appellant received a phone call from Jason Baldwin. Baldwin asked the appellant to accompany him and Damien Echols to the Robin Hood area. The appellant agreed to go. They went to the area, which has a creek, and were in the creek when the victims rode up on their bicycles. Baldwin and Echols called to the boys, who came to the creek. The boys were severely beaten by Baldwin and Echols. At least two of the boys were raped and forced to perform oral sex on Baldwin and Echols. According to appellant, he was merely an observer.

While these events were taking place, Michael Moore tried to escape and began running. The appellant chased him down and returned him to Baldwin and Echols. The appellant also stated that Baldwin had used a knife to cut the boys in the facial area and that the Byers boy was cut on his penis. Echols used a large stick to hit one of the boys. All three