news

48 Hours does it right

Posted by Mara on Friday February 26, 2010
48 Hours does it right

Tonight, CBS presented the finest program on the West Memphis murders since HBO’s “Paradise Lost” aired almost 14 years ago. It’s not easy to tell such a complex story well, but “48 Hours” did the job well. Among many high points, it was a pleasure to see Johnny Depp speak so passionately about the injustice of this case. Watch A Cry for Innocence.

In addition, the “48 Hours” website is hosting additional footage showing interviews with some of the Arkansas people, including me, who are resisting their state’s march to execute Damien Echols and keep Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley in prison until they die. See supporters.

People often ask me what we supporters can do to help. The first and best answer is always to spread the word. With this program, “48 Hours” has given us an excellent link to share.

Read Full Article

For four months, retired judge Burnett ignored Arkansas Supreme Court order

Posted by Mara on Wednesday February 10, 2010
For four months, retired judge Burnett ignored Arkansas Supreme Court order

Retired Circuit Court Judge David Burnett ignored for more than four months an order from the Arkansas Supreme Court regarding what portions, if any, of Damien Echols’ appeals should be sealed.

The matter stemmed from a Freedom of Information request I submitted to Leslie Steen, the clerk of the supreme court, for access to those appeals. In responding to my request, Steen told me that, because parts of the record were sealed, he himself had ordered the entire file to be sealed, thus my request was denied.

Steen also said that, “in an excess of caution,” he had taken the liberty of sealing the records of Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley as well.

When I questioned Steen’s authority for sealing records, he replied that the members of the supreme court were aware that he did it and had never stopped him.

I wrote a column for the Arkansas Times describing the situation and my outlining my belief that Steen and the high court were flaunting Arkansas law, which grants the authority to seal records only to judges.

Following that column, on Oct. 1, 2009, the supreme court took the unusual step of ordering Burnett to “settle the record” as to which parts of the three men’s appeals were sealed and which were not. In an unsigned opinion, the justices wrote that they had been “unable to determine” this matter for themselves.

Only one judge dissented. Justice Paul Danielson pointed out that asking a circuit judge to explain what had been sealed and what hadn’t “vastly deviates from the typical procedures of this court.”

“Either the records, or portions thereof, were filed under seal at the circuit level, or they were not,” hDanielson wrote. “If the record does not indicate that certain exhibits or pleadings were filed under seal, then it seems clear they were not and are public record.”

There the matter stood until last week, when I renewed my FOI request to Steen for the records. I also asked Steen to let me know what Judge Burnett had ruled and when he’d made his ruling.

The next day, Feb. 5, Steen sent me an email that said: “We received Judge Burnett’s order today settling the records in Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin.” He told me I could come to his office and see the records, along with Burnett’s ruling.

Read Full Article

views

Judge John Fogleman: cavalier and careless on the campaign trail

Posted by Mara on Wednesday February 10, 2010
Judge John Fogleman: cavalier and careless on the campaign trail

Judge John Fogleman, who prosecuted Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley and who is now running for a seat on the Arkansas Supreme Court, has said several times that if the three are innocent, he hopes they will soon be freed. He then notes that he does not believe they’re innocent.

An honest judge—one who sincerely cared about matters of guilt and innocence—would take time to learn the facts.

In a speech on Jan. 20, Fogleman derided the importance of new evidence that has been submitted on behalf of the West Memphis Three. He told the Lions Club and Trumann, Arkansas:

“They found a hair that belonged to a stepfather of one of the [murdered] boys and another hair belonging to a friend of that stepfather.

“But what,” he asked, “is really unusual about finding a hair from a stepfather on his stepson. I would think that would be something expected. ... A hair from a stepdad on a stepson shouldn’t be unexpected.”

He concluded: “This was a difficult case. But it was investigated thoroughly. Many people were looked at in this case. But I will say, every piece of evidence we had pointed to those three.”

The problem with all this is that none of it is true.

The hair of a stepfather was found—but not on his own stepson, as Fogleman said, but in the bindings of another of the three murder victims.

If the judge is going to talk about this very important case, he owes it to his audiences to, at least, get his facts straight.
Fogleman also strains credibility with his claim that the case was thoroughly investigated. It was not.

The stepfather whose hair has been found on one of the victims was not even questioned as part of the investigation. And the questioning of other important parties was cursory, inept, or both.

But where Fogleman really mocks his audiences—and everyone in this state who risks having him elected to the supreme court—is with his claim that “every piece of evidence we had pointed to those three.”

He must believe we’re all so ignorant that we don’t know about the evidence left in a Bojangle’s restaurant on the night of the murders by a bloody, muddy man, who tried to clean up in the restroom.

Fogleman must think nobody remembers that when police were asked what happened to the bloody items they’d collected from the restroom, they testified that that critical evidence had been “lost.”

That evidence would have pointed away from the three who were convicted, but it conveniently never made it into court.
Fogleman’s cavalier attitude about the facts and the conduct of this case are chilling.

But the worst of his remarks is this: If losing evidence is so okay with Fogleman that he’s willing to call an investigation in which that happens “thorough,” Arkansans should have grave fears about what kind of judgment he will bring to cases that come before him on the high court, if he’s elected.

Read Full Article

Above the law, Part 2

Posted by Mara on Sunday October 11, 2009

While America and the world look on, we here in Arkansas are struggling with a capricious state supreme court that increasingly has come to symbolize our tattered legal system. Here’s my latest attempt in the Arkansas Times to explain just a little bit of what the WM3—and the rest of us—are up against.

Read Full Article