PROFILE: 

A Paragould Attorney and a Second Judicial District Judge still believes in the innocence of his Client after 10 years

By MIRANDA REMAKLUS
Paragould Daily Press

Daniel Stidham of Paragould represented Jessie Misskelley Jr. during the West Memphis murder trial in which Misskelley, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin were convicted of the brutal deaths of eight-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore that occurred May 5, 1993 in the Robin Hood Hills area of West Memphis.

Echols was sentenced to death by lethal injection, Baldwin was sentenced to life in prison plus forty years with no possibility of parole and Misskelley received life in prison with no parole.

Stidham strongly believes in Misskelley’s innocence and states, “He did not do what the prosecutors and the state alleged he has done. I made a promise to him that I would continue fighting and try to correct this injustice.”I would not defend someone for 10 years if I did not fully believe he didn’t kill those three boys.”

Misskelley’s defense team recently filed a motion to have the court retest some forensic evidence. Stidham said that when the case was tried in 1993 and 1994, DNA evidence was just beginning and now technology has changed dramatically.

He also stated that the Arkansas legislature passed a DNA statute that allows prisoners the right to have their DNA retested. “A combination of these two things makes it possible for us to ask for this (retest) and we are hopeful that some of the items of evidence may yield clues to who the real killer is.”

Stidham said that negotiations are ongoing with respect to the prosecutor and the attorney general’s office about what items may be retested, what laboratories will conduct the tests and who has access to the results. “There are three defendants and three separate defense teams. We are all trying to work together to see that this gets done. I am hopeful that this will prove that not only our clients did not have anything to do with this horrible crime, but perhaps lead us to the real killer.”

Stidham not only believes in Misskelley’s innocence but he believes Echols and Baldwin are innocent as well. “In the quantum of the case, there is actually less evidence against Echols and Baldwin than there is my client. I really do not believe that either of the three had anything to do with the case.” Stidham cited the belief around the time of the case that Christopher’s step-father, John Mark Byers, may have had something to do with the murders. “There are certainly a lot of innuendoes to that affect, but I am not aware of any hard evidence to this. I would submit that there is just as much evidence against Byers as there are the three in prison.”With respect to Byers, Stidham went on to say that, “I am not going to stand up and say that some person did something without proof.”

Stidham personally believes that a serial killer may have had something to do with the murders. “This is my personal belief after 10 years of research, investigation and consultation with criminal profilers and others involved in the case.” Stidham said that there were several things he found fundamentally unfair with the Misskelley case. Primarily that Misskelley was given a polygraph exam by the police immediately prior to his confession. A polygraph test that he actually passed, but the police told him he failed. The court refused to let (the defense team) tell the jury that he had passed his polygraph exam.” Stidham continued that Misskelley confessed because he believed the officers when they told him that he had failed the polygraph test. “I always felt that it was fundamentally unfair that the police could use this machine, which is supposed to tell you whether or not you are lying, as a stick to beat over my client, who is mentally-retarded, to get him to admit to something he did not do.” Stidham said that he had an expert witness that specialized in false confessions from the University of California at Berkeley. “He was never allowed to express his opinion to the jury.”

Stidham also cited the massive media attention that this case received in 1993 to Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols not receiving a fair trial. “I feel that the killer is still out there. There were several other child murders at that time and all of the evidence we have seems to suggest that we may be dealing with a serial killer.” Stidham attributed the amount of media attention that the West Memphis case received, in comparison to the other cases, to the fact that three children were killed. “Anytime three small children are killed at the same time - that has a tendency to generate a lot of publicity.” Stidham said that triple homicides with children are very rare.

Stidham said that the case generated a lot of attention due to ‘satanic panic’ as well. “The West Memphis Police Department, through the assistance of other police departments - including the New York City Police Department, became convinced through some bad science and some bad punches that this was a satanic ritualistic homicide.”Stidham said that at this time in history, several celebrities had stepped forward and were telling of repressed memories they were encountering in which they had been abused. He continued that a kind of witch-hunt mentality was forming. “Essentially, because of this ‘satanic panic’ and the fact that we were dealing with three eight-year-old children - the case had a tendency to become really sensational.”

Stidham said that, at that time, he could not remember a single event in Arkansas, other than Bill Clinton being elected President, where the state garnered as much media attention. “We literally had CNN and the major networks camped in West Memphis delivering daily news briefs -- much like what you have seen recently with the Maryland sniper case and the Peterson case in California.” Stidham discussed that the FBI, after researching the concept of satanic ritualistic homicide, came to the conclusion that there had never been such a thing. Stidham stated, “There has never been a single documented case of satanic ritualistic homicide discovered on this planet.” He said that, “This is different from somebody in California, strangling a bunch of people and saying that the devil made them do it, or with the Son-of-Sam case in New York City where David Berkowitz said that his neighbors’ dog was telling him that the devil was telling him to kill those people.” Stidham went on to say, “There are certain situations where people will claim that the devil made them do things.” He reiterated that there has not been a satanic cult that would kidnap children and sacrifice or mutilate them in the name of their religion.

Stidham touched back on the Laci Peterson case, in which recently Scott Peterson’s defense team has suggested Laci’s death was a type of satanic ritualistic homicide. “Had the lawyer done his homework, and researched this carefully, he would know that there has never been such a thing documented.” Stidham said that he is still amazed with how much attention the case still receives. He said that he still receives mail, e-mail, and calls from around the world from people wondering about the case and how they can donate funds to help. “Common everyday folks and then major celebrities will donate funds.” He emphasized what an interesting ten years he has had with getting to travel the world just for this case. “I have gotten to appear on television to talk about the case and speak at seminars on the facts of this case.”

Stidham’s hope and prayer is that some day, “Justice will be served and the people who were wrongly convicted will be set free and that the person or persons who are responsible for killing these children, are brought to justice.” Stidham stressed that this has been his prayer for ten years. “One of the three convicted (Damien Echols) is on death row. My fear is that we might not find the answers we need in time to save his life.” Appeals are still left with Echols’ case; therefore an execution date has not been set. “Eventually the appeals process will run its course. We are really hopeful that an appeals judge will give us another opportunity to present this case.” The defense attorney said that a jury is only as good as the evidence it is presented with. “That jury (in 1994) did not get all of its information, nor did (the defense team) have access to certain information.”

Stidham said that in 1997, it was discovered that a human bite mark was on the face of one of the victims. “Dental impressions were made on all of the three convicted teens,” Stidham said. “None of the impressions match the bite on the victims face.” He said that this information was not known until four years after the trial and stressed that this was very important information.” New evidence of alibi information has become available which (the defense team) did not have access to before,” Stidham said. “People were so afraid to come forward and talk to the police for fear of being dragged into the panic and with that satanic angle, information 10 years ago that we assumed true, we discovered is not true.” Stidham concluded: ”We are hopeful that we can get another opportunity. I think if we had that opportunity, the results would be dramatically different.