Victim's Father Breaks Gag Order, Says Two of West Memphis Three to be Released

Source: My Fox Memphis

EARLE, Ark. - Although under a court gag order, the father of one of the murder victims in the West Memphis Three case is sounding off on the alleged release of two defendants at a hearing scheduled for Friday morning.

Craighead County Circuit Judge David Laser's office on Thursday said that Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin will be in court Friday in Jonesboro. The three men were convicted in 1994 of killing Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore and leaving their bound bodies in a water-filled ditch in West Memphis.

Echols was sentenced to death while Misskelley and Baldwin received life sentences. The three have each asked for a new trial on the grounds that DNA evidence exonerates them.

Steve Branch, father of 8-year old Stevie Branch, made claims that Friday's hearing will consist of a plea deal for two of the defendants that will lead to their immediate release. Branch was later reprimanded for breaking the gag order by speaking with the media.

Late Thursday, the Arkansas Department of Corrections did confirm Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were ordered to take all their belongings with them to Crittenden County, at least for Friday's hearing. One of the murder victim's mother told FOX13 that while she was unable to comment directly on the case, she expects Friday's hearing to "bring peace" to her family.



Read more: http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/victims-father-breaks-gag-order-says-two-of-wm3-to-be-released-rpt-20110818

---

How great news is this: Vindication at last!

I wonder who the third person who will not be released is, and why that is the case.

I hope they sue the pants off of the state of Arkansas.

In my opinion, they all three should be immediately released. This was one of the worst miscarriages of justice I've ever seen, and the new DNA evidence proves it.

The Rubin Hurricane of the 1990's......such a sad story in every way imaginable.

1) Baldwin and Misskelley are released immediately, with Echols commuted to standard life, so he might be paroled shortly.

2) Baldwin and Echols are released. Misskelley goes back to prison.

The second scenario actually makes sense given what's on the table, since Misskelley was tried separetely, and it was the baldwin/Echols trial that actually saw the most outrageous abuse of judicial process, with the lunatic Satanic "PhD" and the jury foreman bringing evidence not presented at trial (to wit, Misskelley's coerced confession) into the deliberations. I don't really see what would account for the first version, since any deal would be premised on the individual cases, and neither Baldwin nor Echols ever confessed, and they were tried together.

ON EDIT: The Arkansas news says that Echols will be one of the prisoners released. See this link at 0:51 ("two of the three men are going to walk free, including Damien Echols...")

http://www.todaysthv.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1117046129001

Aphrodite Jones' True Crime series on Discovery ID covered this a while back. I think you might still be able to catch a rerun. http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/true-crime-with-aphrodite-jones-arresting-the-west-memphis-three.html Jones reported that Stevie's stepfather, Terry Hobbs', DNA and the DNA of his friend, with whom he was seen earlier in the day, were found at the scene. Apparently one of Terry Hobbs' hairs was found in the rope that was used to bind one of the kids. There was no DNA from any of the West Memphis Three. Stevie's mother now believes Terry Hobbs may be the guilty party, as does Mark Byers, who some had suspected was the guilty party earlier on in the investigation.

it was poorly handled from the beginning and not investigated properly. Some members of the pagan community in the US were particularly upset at how religion was made a part of the case when it should not have been.

A tentative deal would include a legal maneuver allowing the men to maintain their innocence claim while admitting that prosecutors likely have enough evidence to win a conviction, the person familiar with the case said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/18/deal-for-west-memphis-3-may-allow-innocence-claim/#ixzz1VULmwMkI

I don't agree with that. I would want a complete and total exoneration. This deal says they are still guilty by technicality. Doesn't feel right.

The prosecutors won conviction on *nothing* the first time, so it's logical to say they could win conviction on *nothing* a second time. There's certainly a case to be made for demanding outright exoneration. As is perfectly obvious, this is a bribe of freedom in exchange for preventing a mammoth lawsuit, since no Arkansas prosecutor in his right mind would advocate releasing somebody who murdered three children after only 18 years in prison. So, even in the public showing of it, it has the effect of exoneration, even if it is an utterly cynical and mercenary exoneration on the part of the state. If I had a death penalty hanging over my head, I wish I could say that I'd say "No deal" and wait for the evidentiary hearing, but that's a rather abstract thought from the comfortable vantage of my home office.

It's Arkansas. And there are torches and pitchforks people running all over the place. Officially by law, they are still convicted. This was not an overturn of that, but a release. Another thing that must be considered. But I do get your drift.

You cannot plea to a crime that you've already been convicted of. This was a three step process:

1) Convictions of all three were overturned.
2) New charges (cases) were entered against all three.
3) Defendants in the new cases took Alford pleas (pleaded guilty) in the new cases.

As of this morning, none of the West Memphis Three defendants have a jury conviction against them.

But I guess when you've been sitting in prison for over 20 years, you'll take any opportunity to get out, after having the odds stacked against them for so long.
And I dont like the fact theyre saying 2/3 are gonna be released. Neither of the three had anything to do with this, and think its messed up this has taken as long as it has just because the judicial system doesnt want to admit they effed up.
Release all 3 now.

instead they plead guilty. I watched the press conference by the Prosecutor.
Here it is:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/08/19/prosecutors-statement-on-west-memphis-3-plea-deal

The defense is the one who wanted the plea bargain, it wasn't the prosecutors idea, but they went along with it.

They were scheduled for an evidentiary hearing in December that would determine whether they should have a new trial. That decision would take months, maybe even a year. Then the docket would be set, maybe another year. Tick tock, with the prosecutors dragging foot the whole way.

Answer this: why did the prosecutors "go along with" a deal that would free three men convicted a a triple child murder if they truly believed those men to be guilty? Would any prosecutor you ever heard of agree to that in good conscience? Of course not. They extorted the men to save their office, the police, and the state from a lawsuit.

For some reason people believe these guys are innocent, but yet they are forgetting the 3 just plead guilty to murdering 3 little boys and are being released because they served their time. I hope people understand that they are on parole now for 10-years.

Which allows them to plead guilty while claiming innocence. prosecutors almost NEVER allow such pleas to be entered. In almost every plea bargain made in the United States (and we're talking 99.999999%, defendants have to do something called "elocuting," during which they admit to the crime and explain how it happened. Prosecutors waived that in this case. Why would they do that? Because they're desperate to get the plea done and avoid a wrongful conviction lawsuit.

No prosecutor in his right mind agrees to free a triple child murderer he or she believes to be guilty. It simply doesn't happen. The prosecutors offered freedom in exchange for waiving the ability to sue the state, essentially. That's all this is, and anyone being honest about what's going on knows that.

What a travesty.