Viable suspect: Damien Echols

New Posts

Brwnigirl

Brwnigirl

Former Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5
Just wondering what information we have about this person, Lorri Davis Echols, if any?

I have to say I have always found it fascinating how people marry convicted men in jail. There's always something "odd" about them for me.

I would love to see what she writes him, because I reviewed some of his writings on the website today and I thought they were "odd" too.

Thoughts of others???
 
http://wm3.vox.com/library/post/an-urgent-letter-from-lorri-davis-re-defense-fund.html?_c=feed-atom

Above link is the WM3 offical blog, she had posted an urgent letter...


Dear Friends & WM3 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 were reviewed, and rejected, recently by Judge David Burnett, they are now filing new motions with Arkansas' Appellate Division.
Click to expand...




Over the years, countless attempts have been made to have the case reopened. On September 30, 2010 the Arkansas Supreme Court will consider allowing new DNA evidence in the case to be submitted and the case to be reopened.

As that date approaches, media attention to the case is growing once again.

While the case against the WM3 seemed shaky at the time they were convicted, as time progresses and new evidence appears—including DNA evidence which seems to point to other suspects—it seems more and more unlikely that this trio was in fact connected to the boys’ death. (The strongest evidence against the trio came in the form of a confession of one of the three alleged killers, himself mentally handicapped, which was later recanted under accusations of police coercion.)
Click to expand...
more at the link:

http://blog.ez-tracks.com/public/item/west-memphis-three-retrial-depp-vedder-benefit-concert


If "new" evidence was uncovered as they say with this DNA of another, then these three should indeed have a new trial..If what they say about this jury foreman, and it can be proven....then definately a new trial...JMHO
 
I wish someone could explain to me why this is the Damien Echols defense fund, and not the Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley defense fund.

There's something about this that seems a bit hinky to me. For instance, if Damien were to die either by natural causes or injection, what happens to this money?

It obviously isn't going to Baldwin or Misskelley because their names aren't on it.
Does it go to Lori? Wouldn't that be something?
Here's an interesting link:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jan/17/money-at-root-of-effort-to-free-3/
 
Well from all indications it goes to Lorri Davis, and since she has consistently refused a public accounting of the fund even though it is considered a charity. IMO something is definitely fishy there.
Add to that IMO that Lorri took two years off work, it makes me wonder how she supported herself if it wasn't the fund.
I believe it was also last year that Dan Stidham (jessie's original attorney) and others voiced their concern about this very question. To the point that they developed a new fund to make sure it was equally divided.
 
i guess the question would be, who founded it? if it was founded by an entity in an effort to raise funds for all three, i think there would be a real problem with LD having sole rights. however, if it were founded by someone, (for example- LD), raising funds solely for DE's defense, that is a different story. as with any fund raising organization, it is always wise to do your research and donate at your own discretion.
 
Now, please keep in mind, I haven't researched this AT ALL, but my first thought would be - why? Since Baldwyn and MissKelley both got life, their 2 appeals should be up by now. The only person that can legally still file appeals, thus needing a "defense fund" would be the one that's on death row - Echols. He should be the only one of the 3 that gets unlimited appeals.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
 
SheBoss said:
Now, please keep in mind, I haven't researched this AT ALL, but my first thought would be - why? Since Baldwyn and MissKelley both got life, their 2 appeals should be up by now. The only person that can legally still file appeals, thus needing a "defense fund" would be the one that's on death row - Echols. He should be the only one of the 3 that gets unlimited appeals.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
Click to expand...


Sorry but that's incorrect. Baldwin and Misskelley still have appeals left, in fact IMO they are much farther behind in their appeals due to the "defense fund" and the lack of funds they seemed to get in the past. (this is IMO according to the fund and stories printed in the newspaper when Dan Stidham and Mara Leveritt actually set up a different defense fund).

Echols does not get unlimited appeals either, he is very close to the end of his. If the ASSC does not send the appeal back to circuit court on the 31st (this is when the hearing is, not necessarily when the opinion will come down) then the only thing Damien has left is Federal. Now IMO from all I've read on the chances of anything happening on the Federal level is almost nil. Since this appeal to the ASSC is dealing with only one item (although the defense has thrown other points in) that item being the DNA. IMO since the DNA evidence is not proof of actual innocence, and does not point conclusively to another perpetrator of the crime it comes down to how the ASSC defines the DNA statute. The states attorney has already come forth to say that if this appeal is granted, then the ASSC is basically taking powers away from the Governor. It will set a major precedent in future cases, so IMO I don't see that happening.
 
Here's the latest interview from Death Row with Damien Echols. It's in three parts.

[video=youtube;_LBtXoYrpRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBtXoYrpRw&feature=player_embedded[/video]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg0WwfW3RtM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOxowggpZuY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

I'm sorry the sound quality is so poor, but he's talking through glass.
 
Thanks for that. We just don't get any coverage of this case over here, so I didn,t realise there was any recent interviews. Very interesting to watch.
 
I have a question for those who know this case. On CNN tonight, AC showed a clip from a previous report about this story. I've found it on youtube.

[video=youtube;718MifWn408]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=718MifWn408[/video]

My question is how accurate against the known facts is Echols's statement there that throughout the day many people saw him and that he was on the phone with 3 people during the time of murder and that his attorneys did not call any of them as witnesses? Thanks.
 
The attorneys didn't even subpoena the phone records. In fact, the prosecution implied that it would be impossible. Without the records, the testimony would just be more friends and family supporting a defendant. Damien's attorneys saw how that worked out in Jessie's trial, and therefore, IIRC, they didn't bother to call the witnesses. Statements were taken, but I don't think any of the girls were called.
 
.....and there was not a single witness even though everyone was supposedly out looking for the boys starting early in the evening that even saw Damien (who stood out) in that area.....
 
Except those paragons of truth, the Hollingsworths, who claimed to see Damien and Domini walking along the service road in muddy clothes. Then, somehow, Domini morphs into Jason, and Domini was their niece! Just a little on the ridiculous side, don't you think?
 
Compassionate Reader said:
The attorneys didn't even subpoena the phone records. In fact, the prosecution implied that it would be impossible. Without the records, the testimony would just be more friends and family supporting a defendant. Damien's attorneys saw how that worked out in Jessie's trial, and therefore, IIRC, they didn't bother to call the witnesses. Statements were taken, but I don't think any of the girls were called.
Click to expand...

Wow, this sounds like he was not satisfied with his defense. You do know that he has control of that though?

I think he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his trial. Which cannot be appealed on that.

Most appeals are because the defendant thinks his attorneys were ineffective.
 
In Arkansas, that type of appeal is a Rule 37 appeal. Judge Burnett denied it, as usual, because he was running for the State Senate (a seat which he eventually won [which is why we don't have to deal with him anymore]). I don't think it was even brought up because the attorneys believed the BS the prosecution told them about not being able to get the records. Of course, it's all moot now. The Three are free.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
In Arkansas, that type of appeal is a Rule 37 appeal. Judge Burnett denied it, as usual, because he was running for the State Senate (a seat which he eventually won [which is why we don't have to deal with him anymore]). I don't think it was even brought up because the attorneys believed the BS the prosecution told them about not being able to get the records. Of course, it's all moot now. The Three are free.
Click to expand...

"A Rule 37 hearing is held if a convicted felon thinks he or she received inadequate legal counsel. Davis spent most of the day questioning Stidham under cross-examination.

Despite the post-conviction admission, Stidham still believes that his former client is innocent and that he didn't provide Misskelley an adequate defense at trial.

...

It was the first case Stidham took to trial, he said. Two factors - inexperienced legal counsel and a lack of monetary resources - doomed Misskelley's defense from the start, Stidham contended. "

http://www.wm3.org/News/view/BALDWIN-AND-MISSKELLEY-RULE-37-HEARINGS-2008-11-20

For more information, you can read here: http://courts.arkansas.gov/rules/rules_crim_procedure/index.cfm

These are the AR rules of criminal procedure and you can find the information on this hearing towards the bottom. Under Rule 37. :)
 
UdbCrzy2 said:
Wow, this sounds like he was not satisfied with his defense. You do know that he has control of that though?

I think he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his trial. Which cannot be appealed on that.

Most appeals are because the defendant thinks his attorneys were ineffective.
Click to expand...

And how old was he? And did HE know that? He was a teenager, what would you do? As an adult I don't even know what I would do except to answer the truth as I knew it. And in regard to his interrogation...how long was he questioned for? When was he told he could talk to lawyer? When was he told he could talk to his parents? Were his parents there?
 
Are there links to Damien's (and Jason's, although OT, I guess) sessions with LE? TIA...
 
For those of you new to the case, check out this site:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/

It is the repository of all legal proceedings in connection with the case. If you can't find something there, try the Blackboard:

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php

It is a supporter's discussion board with links to documents (the Document Archive tab at the top links to callahan's) and case discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 150 more.
Total: 2,894 (members: 151, guests: 2,743)

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
2,743
Total visitors
2,894
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,126
Messages
17,963,599
Members
228,689
Latest member
Melladanielle
Back
Top