Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / West Memphis Three - Part II

Transcript

West Memphis Three - Part II · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: He has submitted a request for further DNA testing from
• 0:03
  the crime scene in hopes of uncovering new evidence regarding
• 0:07
  the actual events that transpired. Stidder anticipates that the new
• 0:11
  testing will assist investigators in developing a more precise profile
• 0:16
  of the suspect. Ideally, he expressed his hope that the
• 0:20
  tests will connect to a perpetrator who is already incarcerated.
• 0:25
  My aspiration is that we can obtain additional DNA testing
• 0:29
  and integrate that with our existing data to formulate a
• 0:33
  profile of the actual murderer, he stated. However, the attorney
• 0:38
  acknowledges the existence of another distinct possibility, a theory he
• 0:42
  finds difficult to dismiss despite its unsettling nature. In two
• 0:47
  thousand and seven, DNA analysis revealed a partial match linking
• 0:52
  more to Branch's stepfather, Terry Hobbs, while another test identified
• 0:57
  a partial match at the crime scene associated with Hobb's
• 1:00
  alibi witness, David Jacobi. Investigators have exonerated both men, who
• 1:06
  have consistently denied any connection to the case. Hobbes even
• 1:10
  authored a memoir detailing the aftermath of the trial, including
• 1:15
  the alleged threats and harassment he endured after amateur sleuth's
• 1:19
  identified him as a possible suspect. Nevertheless, Stidham expressed that
• 1:25
  his team has yet to completely trace Hobb's whereabouts on
• 1:29
  the night the boys were murdered, leaving him hesitant to
• 1:32
  dismiss any possibilities. While he remains optimistic that his investigative efforts,
• 1:38
  along with a request for new testing, will ultimately fulfill
• 1:42
  his long standing commitment to miss Kelly. Stidham, who is
• 1:45
  now a judge in Arkansas, shared that the process of
• 1:49
  writing his book and piecing together the events has provided
• 1:53
  him with a sense of closure regarding the traumatic experiences
• 1:57
  and public backlash he encountered in nineteen ninety three when
• 2:01
  he first engaged with the case. Following miss Kelly's confession
• 2:05
  to law enforcement, his trial was separated from that of
• 2:09
  Baldwin and Eccles. Prosecutor John Fogelman aimed for miss Kelly
• 2:13
  to testify against Baldwin and Eccles. However, miss Kelly declined
• 2:18
  to reaffirm his earlier statements and subsequently recanted them. The
• 2:23
  trial for miss Kelly commenced on January twenty sixth, nineteen
• 2:27
  ninety four, while Baldwin and Eccles faced trial a month later,
• 2:32
  starting on February twenty eighth. Both trials attracted considerable media
• 2:37
  scrutiny and significant legal challenges arose as Judge David Burnett,
• 2:42
  Prosecutor Fogelman, and the defense teams for each defendant navigated
• 2:46
  the admissibility of evidence before the jury. The jury was
• 2:50
  permitted to hear testimony from a cult expert who suggested
• 2:55
  that the defendant's music collections and attire were indicative of
• 2:59
  involvement in satanic cult activities. Other evidence presented to the
• 3:04
  juries was similarly circumstantial. The defense attorneys were unable to
• 3:09
  introduce more substantial evidence concerning the police investigation or the
• 3:14
  retraction of critical testimony, largely due to their trial strategies
• 3:19
  and the judge's refusal to permit such evidence. Ultimately, the
• 3:24
  juries in both trials concluded that the defendants were guilty
• 3:28
  of the charges against them. Miss Kelly and Baldwin received
• 3:32
  life sentences, with miss Kelly receiving an additional forty years,
• 3:37
  while Eccoles was sentenced to death. On January ninth, twenty
• 3:43
  twenty three, legal representatives for Ecoles petitioned the Arkansas Supreme
• 3:48
  Court to overturn Alexander's decision. Subsequently, in the same year,
• 3:54
  the Innocence Project, the Center on Wrongful Convictions, along with
• 3:58
  a coalition of individuals wrongfully convicted publicly, advocated for the
• 4:03
  state Supreme Court to permit new DNA testing. On April eighteenth,
• 4:09
  twenty twenty four, the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that an
• 4:13
  individual who enters an Alford plea retains the right to
• 4:17
  submit a petition under Act seventeen eighty of two thousand one.
• 4:22
  This act allows individuals convicted of a crime to seek
• 4:25
  to vacate their judgment if scientific evidence not available at
• 4:29
  the time of the trial establishes the petitioner's actual innocence,
• 4:34
  thereby enabling ECOALS to pursue additional DNA testing in accordance
• 4:39
  with their beliefs. Ecoals, Misskelli, and Baldwin provided dental imprints
• 4:44
  for analysis. These imprints were evaluated against the purported bite
• 4:49
  marks found on Stevie Branch's forehead, which had not been
• 4:52
  referenced in the initial autopsy or during the trial proceedings.
• 4:57
  No correlations were identified. John Mark Byers underwent dental extraction
• 5:03
  in nineteen ninety seven, subsequent to the first trial, but
• 5:07
  prior to the opportunity for an imprint to be taken.
• 5:11
  His explanations for this dental procedure appear to be inconsistent.
• 5:16
  He has asserted that the medication he was prescribed for
• 5:19
  seizures led to periodontal disease, while also indicating that the
• 5:24
  extraction was a preemptive measure due to long standing dental issues.
• 5:30
  Following an expert's review of the autopsy images who suggested
• 5:34
  the possibility of a belt buckle imprint on Buyer's body,
• 5:37
  the elder Byers disclosed to law enforcement that he had
• 5:41
  disciplined his step son shortly before the child's disappearance. There
• 5:46
  have been a number of books about the case.