Stidham Seeks Justice

By Kelley Risker
Northeast Arkansas Tribune Staff Writer
February 19-20, 1999

It doesn't happen much around here, not in a small town. Capital murder cases happen far away, to other people. They are tried in court by other lawyers, not attorneys that we know personally, not someone we might bump into at the post office or grocery store. But this time something far-reaching and big city came uncomfortably close to home.
Though not in recent news, the case involving the deaths of three West Memphis boys almost six years ago still remains in the mind and life of a defendant's lawyer, Dan Stidham. A Paragould native, Stidham graduated from ASU in 1984 with a bachelor of science degree in Sociology. His law degree was earned in 1987, and for the last 11 years Stidham has been quietly practicing law in his office on North Second Street.

Even after being involved in a handful of murder cases, though, this one was unexpected. Appointed to the defense in 1993, Stidham admits that this particular homicide is the most complicated and biggest case he has ever been involved in. He was handed the case due to a personal conflict of the West Memphis public defender, and though the trial itself is over, the facts of the case linger.

The case itself involved the murder of three eight-year-old boys and sexual mutilation of one of the victims May 5, 1993. The boys returned home from school one by one and disappeared, never to be seen alive again. Three older boys were charged with this triple murder; enter Dan Stidham.

Stidham represents Jessie Misskelley, a then 17-year-old with a five-year-old mental capability. With an I.Q. of 72, Misskelley was diagnosed in 1993 as border line mentally retarded. An earlier test, done while Misskelley was in grade school, diagnosed Misskelley as completely retarded. A fact, Stidham believes, that enabled police to coerce his client into a false confession.

About four months after his appointment to the case, Stihdam realized two things: one, there were problems with the facts, and two, Misskelley's questionable mental capabilities. "Initially I thought he was guilty," Stidham said. "It's difficult to imagine that someone would confess to something he didn't do."

Stidham is adamant about his client's innocence, though, for many reasons. Though Misskelley confessed to the crime, many aspects of his confession did not match the crime scene, said Stidham. Several pieces of his testimony were inaccurate with the details of the case. For example, Misskelley stated in his confession that the killings were at noon, whereas Misskelley and the victims were at school during that hour. He additionally "confessed" to police that the victims were bound with brown rope though they were actually tied with shoe laces. Additionally, some of the wounds on the victim's body that Misskelley described did not even exist. The most interesting aspect of the case, setting aside the conflicting issues, said Stidham, was the fact that no physical evidence linked his client to the killings-no footprints, fingerprints, "nothing. The only link was the confession."

"It was apparent to me that there was a problem," Stidham said. We normally don't question confessions except with glaring inconsistencies."

Misskelley was "suggestible" and did not realize what to do, said Stidham. His client was given a lie detector test immediately and prior to his confession and was told by West Memphis Police that he had failed. According to Stidham's synopsis of the case, experts say that when a person of limited intellect and who is very suggestible is told they have flunked a polygraph test, they will often confess falsely as their perception of reality is changed, and they see it as their only chance to avoid getting into trouble, please their interrogators and leave the pressure of the interrogation.

Polygraph expert Warren Holmes of Miami, Fla., was retained by Stidham and reviewed the polygraph charts. According to Holmes, Misskelley had passed all of the questions about the homicides. This fact, however, was moot because lie detector tests are inadmissible in a court of law.

An additional expert, Dr. Richard Ofshe, was added ot the list of Misskelley advocates. Ofshe is a Pulitzer Prize winner for his work in the Synanon Cult in California, making him all the more valuable in the case since the murders were believed to be cult related. Ofshe's second area of expertise is false confessions, and after reviewing the transcript of the confession Ofshe was convinced of Misskelley's innocence.

The jury was not allowed to hear the compelling testimonies of these two expert witnessess, even though crucial to the defense. The defendants were sentenced in February of 1994. Damien Echols was sentenced to Death Row, Jason Baldwin to life without the possibility of parole, and Misskelley to life plus forty years for the murders of James Moore, Steve Branch and Chris Byers. Although there was no acquittal, Misskelley did avoid a capital murder conviction, and thus the death penalty. Since the sentencing, Stidham has been appealing this conviction.

For a new trial, in addition to the issues previously argued on appeal, Stidham would also rely on on the words and findings of the forensic analysis of and psychological profile of Brent E. Turvey, MS. This criminal profiler agreed to look at all physical evidence, autopsies, the crime scene, which had not been properly secured resulting in a loss of potential evidence. Stidham purposefully did not tell all the information to Turvey about his client's confession or who he believed was guilty because he wanted an independent analysis.

Turvey additionally identified several things on the victims bodies that were inconsistent with upholding the guilt of the suspects. The most integral was a bite mark on one of the bodies. A forensic odontologist (dentist) examined the bite mark and compared it to the dental impressions of the three suspects; none matched. "We're hopeful that this, coupled with other evidence, will lead to a new trial for these kids," said Stidham.

"anyone who looks at the facts of the case will come to the conclude that these kids are innocent," Stidham said. It has become a "personal quest for justice" for this small town lawyer. "I'm willing and eager to talk to anybody about it," he said. "I believe so much in the innocence of my client…it's a terrible injustice."

In 1998 Stidham received a call from the producers of the "Leeza" show in Los Angeles, California. Ofshe and Turvey were invited to speak and Stidham said that he was reluctant to appear because he had previously turned down two invitations to appear on Geraldo and one on the Maury Povitch Show, because "I felt they were trying to sensationalize the case and not present actual facts," he said. Nevertheless, Stidham agreed to participate in a taping of the show. According to Stidham, the "show went real well, no surprises, the audience asked good questions. I was impressed with how it went." The program was originally slated to air January 7, 1999, but was pulled at the last minute because of concerns about airing the graphic details of the case on daytime television. Producers are editing the show for content. Stidham was told by the senior producer that the show will air eventually as it cost almost a half million dollars to produce. The Leeza Show itself is ending soon and will then be syndicated, in which case, Stidham said, the show may not air for several more months.

Stidham said that the experience of the case has "carved an impression in his life, and until appeals are completed, he will not put the case to rest.