Speaker 1: Main in a live Man like this, Man, you letting
Speaker 1: butterfly flapping his wing dig down in the forest. Man,
Speaker 1: it gonna cause a tree fall, letting five thousand miles away. Man,
Speaker 1: nobody seen, nobody, You don't even know. Man. You a
Speaker 1: little story and you got that. Man. Man don't like
Speaker 1: a dang on the panel? Mann matter?
Speaker 2: Man all right after uh after much fanfare. Really, people
Speaker 2: will not shut up about getting this episode out. Thomas,
Speaker 2: Welcome back to The Jay Burdon Show. It's good to
Speaker 2: have you. Man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks for hosting me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course you know I'm joking. I'm glad that
Speaker 2: people have been enjoying this series covering the West Memphis three.
Speaker 2: But we're back to sort of resume where we left off,
Speaker 2: So I'll kick it to you, Thomas.
Speaker 1: What's most significant in terms of the case against the
Speaker 1: West Memphis three Just an evidentiary terms we were talking
Speaker 1: about before went live. Obviously, an admission by a party
Speaker 1: opponent in the form of a confession, in this case,
Speaker 1: multiple confessions, that carries more evidentiary weight really than anything
Speaker 1: other than direct evidence, you know, direct eyewitness testimony, and
Speaker 1: the people who advocate for the innocence of the West
Speaker 1: Memphis three. Really the core of their narrative. The defense's
Speaker 1: case in chief, in a rebuttal if you will, is
Speaker 1: that Jesse mus Kelly's mentally disabled and he was coerced
Speaker 1: into confess by the police who were depriving him of
Speaker 1: counsel and frightening him and providing him essentially with testimony
Speaker 1: they expected him to parrot in order to incriminate himself. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a few things to understand about cours confessions. They
Speaker 1: absolutely do happen, but there's a pattern that develops there. Generally,
Speaker 1: they happen in the absence of circumstantial or direct evidence.
Speaker 1: That wasn't the case here, And almost without exception, the
Speaker 1: defendant immediately begins retracting his statement and insisting that he
Speaker 1: was coerced. Miss Kelly confessed repeatedly on record. He confessed
Speaker 1: to his attorneys, He confessed to the sheriff's deputies escorting
Speaker 1: to prison after it was convicted. He confessed to acquaintances,
Speaker 1: he confessed to cellmates. You know, you can't get away
Speaker 1: from you can't get around this, you know, And I
Speaker 1: think it's a matter of people watch the documentary The
Speaker 1: Brolinger in a Sinovsky documentary, they take that at face value,
Speaker 1: and they don't dig into the trial record, and they
Speaker 1: don't dig into the the offers a proof. They just say, oh,
Speaker 1: if he confessed repeatedly, he was being coerced. No, we're
Speaker 1: talking about discreete occurrences months apart under totally different conditions.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, and I'm gonna this is
Speaker 1: the caveat. There's some really disturbing testimony I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: into that's disgusting, that deals with the sensual abuse and
Speaker 1: murder of children. If that anything bothers you, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna we're dak language that I don't embarrass myself
Speaker 1: for anybody else, But it's a pretty horrible subject matter.
Speaker 1: To just be aware that you may want to skip
Speaker 1: over this or or tune out if if that upsets you.
Speaker 1: I also wanted to know, just as for foundational purposes.
Speaker 1: The overarching narrative of West Memphis three innocence advocates is
Speaker 1: that marrying in West Memphis was this town of religious
Speaker 1: this community religious fundamentalists who were bigoted Holy rollers, who
Speaker 1: were terrified of this phantasm of occultism, and they persecuted
Speaker 1: these teenage boys we've established that. Well, I can't remember
Speaker 1: some data, and to Gary Mees's credit, he he corralled this.
Speaker 1: The county where Maryon and West Memphis are located is
Speaker 1: Crittenden County, and as of nineteen ninety, the percentage of
Speaker 1: the population of Crittenden County that declared an affiliation with
Speaker 1: a religious congregation was well blown the national average. The
Speaker 1: statistical profile was forty one point seven percent compared to
Speaker 1: a national average of fifty point two percent. This was
Speaker 1: also a community that was sustained by the interstate So yes,
Speaker 1: it was poor, it was southern. It was not what
Speaker 1: you'd call a cosmopolitan have a culture. But in interstate
Speaker 1: towns like this, gambling's big, prostitution's big, drugs are big.
Speaker 1: You got all kinds of transient people, and religion actually
Speaker 1: isn't a big thing there. It's again below the national average.
Speaker 1: Now America is so large the meaning of those averages
Speaker 1: can be diluted. But when we're talking about it discrete
Speaker 1: allegation that this community was characterized by some sort of
Speaker 1: extreme religiosity that was well outside the norm. That's now
Speaker 1: that's a confabulation, just outright, you know, And I made
Speaker 1: the point before we went live, A lot was made
Speaker 1: to the fact that the state and establishing foundation for motive.
Speaker 1: Evidence of motive plan design is admissible because it's relevant.
Speaker 1: The state never needs to prove motive as an element
Speaker 1: of the offense, but obviously it's factually relevant. You know. Again,
Speaker 1: there were the trappings of occult belief structures surrounding this
Speaker 1: crime scene, the testimony of people who knew echoes and
Speaker 1: who heard his illusions and in some cases are right
Speaker 1: confessions to the crimes he identified as an occultist, and
Speaker 1: the police and the state's attorney's office proffered experts on
Speaker 1: occult crime. And this was held out in the Paradise
Speaker 1: Lost movie. As see this police department was so out
Speaker 1: of it and crazy they had an occult crime staff. Well,
Speaker 1: so did Chicago PD, so did the NYPD, so did LAPD.
Speaker 1: These days, whether it's one officer or one hundred officer.
Speaker 1: As a sign of that detail, they'd refer to it
Speaker 1: as as security threat group investigations that would entail everything
Speaker 1: from gangs to non state actors and political terrorist groups
Speaker 1: to cult organizations that are involved in criminal or raggeteering activity.
Speaker 1: It's a broad pnumber of of behaviors and structures. It's
Speaker 1: not merely you know, satanic crime or something an ad order,
Speaker 1: but the other as it may. The most significant confessions
Speaker 1: mss kelly confessions. He confessed on February fourth, nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 1: This was after his arrest. Okay, not not even addressing
Speaker 1: his custodial arrest. I'll accept that that's not a legitimate confession.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that to be the case. I think
Speaker 1: it satisfies all the criteria of due process. But making
Speaker 1: that concession the defense, let's redact that entirely. So we've
Speaker 1: got three confessions here. We've got a confession on February fourth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four. We've got a confession on February eighth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four. We got a confession on February seventeenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four. Now, the February fourth confession came to
Speaker 1: light a Shero's deputy named John Moody. In transporting miss
Speaker 1: Kelly post conviction. Immediately post conviction to the Arkansas Department
Speaker 1: of Corrections, he contacted Gary Gotchell, who was the homicide
Speaker 1: inspector of the West Memphis Police Department. Now this is
Speaker 1: relevant to miss Kelly was. These were Clay County Sheriff's deputies,
Speaker 1: not Crittenden County. Because miss Kelly's trial had been removed
Speaker 1: from Crittenden County by defense motion. They asked for a
Speaker 1: change of venue, alleging that miss Kelly would be prejudiced
Speaker 1: in Critinin County, like the potential jury pool would be
Speaker 1: tainted against them, and they got that motion granted. So supposedly,
Speaker 1: again the state's trying to frame up miss Kelly, but
Speaker 1: they're granting defense motions to remove the trial, you know.
Speaker 1: And this was pre Internet, So these Clay County jurors
Speaker 1: they were, they were they prejudiced against him too, because
Speaker 1: they're taken in by satanic panic. But that's relevant, it's material,
Speaker 1: it's not just a matter of trivia. So this Clay
Speaker 1: County Sheriff's deputy, and this was validated by a deputy
Speaker 1: James Lindsay, who was with this officer named of John
Speaker 1: Moody on the afternoon at February fourth. This is John
Speaker 1: Moody's testimony that he wrote to uh Giggell on the
Speaker 1: anting of February fourth, nineteen ninety four. Deputy James Lindsay
Speaker 1: and myself for transferring Jesse miss Kelly to Arkansas Department
Speaker 1: of Corrections At Pine Bluff. Jesse was asked if there's
Speaker 1: anything he wanted to say. After being assured we could
Speaker 1: not use anything he said against him in court, he
Speaker 1: chose to talk. Jason advised he had received a call
Speaker 1: from Jason Baldwin. This is speaking on the date of
Speaker 1: the murders. May fifth, nineteen ninety three. Jesse advised he'd
Speaker 1: received a call from Jason Baldwin ask him if he
Speaker 1: wanted to go to West Memphis to quote get some girls. Jesse, Damien,
Speaker 1: and Jason met on a local road on May fifth.
Speaker 1: Sometime in the evening, Jesse claimed that he'd been drinking
Speaker 1: Evan Williams whiskey. This becomes material that he was drinking
Speaker 1: Evan Williams, Jesse clan had been drinking Evan Williams whiskey,
Speaker 1: and that a Missus Hutchinson had bought him and Jason
Speaker 1: and Damien beer and whiskey. Jason and Damon were drinking beer.
Speaker 1: Jesse also stated that they had smoked two marijuana joints
Speaker 1: that afternoon. Jesse said that he had known Jason Baldwin
Speaker 1: since the sixth grade and did not know Damien that well,
Speaker 1: but that Damien would drink human blood. Jesse stated that
Speaker 1: after all meeting on the road, the three boys walked
Speaker 1: to the woods and were sitting in the water. Three
Speaker 1: young boys were seen from a distance when Damien told
Speaker 1: Jesse and Jason to hide. Jesse said they were hiding
Speaker 1: behind bushy is when Damien grabbed Michael Moore, one of
Speaker 1: the young boys. The two other young boys started hitting
Speaker 1: Damien trying to help their friend, and this is what
Speaker 1: Jesse and Jason jumped out and helped Damien beat them.
Speaker 1: Jesse advised he helped hold them and beat them, but
Speaker 1: had no part in raping or killing them. Jesse advised
Speaker 1: two of the boys were raped and that Jesse and
Speaker 1: Jason were taking turns beating the two boys. Jesse said
Speaker 1: the two boys were still alive at this time. Jesse
Speaker 1: said the boys were kept quiet by putting hands over
Speaker 1: their mouths, and that Jason and Damian had to use
Speaker 1: their shirts and that at times their face was pushed
Speaker 1: down into the ground. Used their shirts for It's not clear,
Speaker 1: but he means to gag them, Jesse was asked. So
Speaker 1: the boys were kept under control while being raped and
Speaker 1: not tied yet, and he stated, quote, they were like
Speaker 1: puppies when he whoop a puppy and tell it to
Speaker 1: stay at will. Jesse did say that he had to
Speaker 1: catch Michael Moore, but did not say at what point.
Speaker 1: Jesse claims that third boy was never raped. Jesse said
Speaker 1: at one point that Jason one of the boys in
Speaker 1: a headlock, and he believes that Jason had sexually assaulted him.
Speaker 1: At one point, Jesse said that Jason had a quote
Speaker 1: buck looking knife and had castrated the boy and quote
Speaker 1: thrown it into the weeds, meaning the knife. The boy
Speaker 1: was alive and tied. At this point, Jesse was surprised
Speaker 1: blood did not get out on him because blood was
Speaker 1: everywhere and he was only about to carlinth the way.
Speaker 1: Jesse said they threw the boy into the water and
Speaker 1: he was still spirming in the water, at which point
Speaker 1: Jesse said he left. Jesse said he believed the other
Speaker 1: two boys were not conscious when he left, but they
Speaker 1: were not yet in the water. Jesse stated that Jason
Speaker 1: called him later and that's why he left. Jesse told
Speaker 1: Jason he could not stand to watch any longer. He
Speaker 1: claims the only other contact here with Jason and Damien.
Speaker 1: Subsequent were a couple of times at the skating rink,
Speaker 1: but they were mad at him. Jesse claims his lawyers
Speaker 1: asked him he was innocent, and Jesse said that he
Speaker 1: had lied to them. Jesse said he had lied about
Speaker 1: the time of the crime and the bindings used on
Speaker 1: the victims to quote trick the police and see if
Speaker 1: they were lying. Jesse claims, who felt sorry for what
Speaker 1: has happened, and talks if he wants to testify against
Speaker 1: the other boys, they will not go free, and to
Speaker 1: help himself. Now, the claim I assume of defense proponents
Speaker 1: is that these deputies were lying. But again, this case
Speaker 1: was potentially a death penalty case, and Echols was sentenced
Speaker 1: in death. So you've got to believe that these two
Speaker 1: deputy sheriffs, who presumably didn't even know Inspector Derry Gotchell
Speaker 1: until this trial underway, and even then, even at the
Speaker 1: time of writing this letter, they might not have even
Speaker 1: known him. They might have just known of him from
Speaker 1: a totally different county. They've got no connection to the case.
Speaker 1: You've got to believe that they spontaneously decided to make
Speaker 1: up a story commit perjury framed jess he Mus Kelly
Speaker 1: and the other two defendants again in a death penalty
Speaker 1: case where potentially it'd be availed to not just losing
Speaker 1: their jobs and their pensions, potentially decades in prison just
Speaker 1: to frame these random kids. I mean, like that is
Speaker 1: that remotely credible? I I've never heard of anything like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, people whose strange things. But that's I guess
Speaker 1: what the claim is is that Clay County, like Crittenden,
Speaker 1: was just full of holy roller, bigot, satanic panic victims
Speaker 1: who would stop at nothing to the frame innocent people
Speaker 1: for occult crime. But again I don't I don't find
Speaker 1: that credible. The second confession, I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: third total confession. This is the second confession that again
Speaker 1: I think is unimpeded, should be credible. It was February eight,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four. This is when Jesse mss kelly was
Speaker 1: at Pine Bluff, which was his destination prison to serve
Speaker 1: his sentence or strike that I think it was a
Speaker 1: feeder prison, pending classification of his security level and things.
Speaker 1: Because in the case the diagnostic unit, that kind of
Speaker 1: mean that he was under psychiatric evaluation based on his
Speaker 1: behavior and conduct or something like suicidal ideation or because
Speaker 1: it was a feeder institution pending classification. Dan Stidham, who
Speaker 1: was one of miss Kelly's defense attorneys, he was not
Speaker 1: a public defender. What a lot of jurisdiction to do
Speaker 1: is they assign the courtal assigned an attorney in private
Speaker 1: practice to represent indigent defendants on a case by days basis.
Speaker 1: And as a member of the bar in good standing,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's part of your duty the community
Speaker 1: as a legal professional. Women officer of the court. And
Speaker 1: Stidham was. He was a younger guy, I think he
Speaker 1: was about thirty, but he was well regarded. He he
Speaker 1: put on a zealous defense. So this is Stidham's interview
Speaker 1: with miss Kelly. Mind you, Stidham was his lawyer and
Speaker 1: his trial advocate, and he just sat through months of
Speaker 1: the proceedings with him. This is Stidham talking. It's this
Speaker 1: is three twenty pm February nineteen eighty four at the
Speaker 1: Pine Bluff, Arkansas Department of Correction, an diagnostic unit. Stidham, Okay, Jesse.
Speaker 1: A few minutes ago, I asked you about making some
Speaker 1: statements to the officers on the transport of view from
Speaker 1: Pigo to Pine Bluff. You told me that you had
Speaker 1: told them some stuff. Is that correct, instead of speaking
Speaker 1: of what was just relayed in that letter. So apparently
Speaker 1: Jesse had relayed to him that he made these statements,
Speaker 1: further validating them, Miss Kelly, Yes, Sir Stidham. And at
Speaker 1: first he told me that you were just making it up.
Speaker 1: They were aligned to them. And then you placed your
Speaker 1: hand on a Bible and told me that you were
Speaker 1: there when those boys got killed. Miss Kelly. Yes, Sir.
Speaker 1: What's the truth? Stidham? What's the truth? Jesse? I want
Speaker 1: to know the truth, Miss Kelly. The truth is me
Speaker 1: and Jason and Damien Dunnett. Stidham, you were there when
Speaker 1: the boys were killed, Miss Kelly, Yes, Sir Stidham. Now
Speaker 1: it's going to be very important for you to tell
Speaker 1: me why it was that he'd been maintaining you weren't
Speaker 1: there all this time, Miss Kelly. I was scared, Stidham.
Speaker 1: What were you scared of? Miss Kelly? I always lied,
Speaker 1: and I hadn't ever put my hand on the Bible
Speaker 1: and swore nobody didn't tell me to do that. If
Speaker 1: they would have told me that at first, I would
Speaker 1: have done it. Nobody told me to put my hand
Speaker 1: on the Bible. Stidham Okay, so basically been lying to
Speaker 1: me and mister Crow, mister Crow was co counsel for
Speaker 1: the defense in the past seven or so months, about
Speaker 1: not being there when you were in fact there, miss Kelly, Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: I mean I heard it alleged by one of these
Speaker 1: post conviction attorneys. Oh, miss Kelly's mentally retarded. So he
Speaker 1: he thought that Stidham was the police. Get the fuck
Speaker 1: out of here. That's that's that's ridiculous. I mean, first
Speaker 1: of all, again, as a matter of law, miss Kelly's
Speaker 1: not retarded, and I don't think people understand. Look, miss
Speaker 1: Kelly was the son of a felon, and I've got
Speaker 1: no standing to put Shane on that. But this kid
Speaker 1: was in and out of the systems to his old
Speaker 1: family for his whole life. Guys who are in the
Speaker 1: system on phony charges, they know the law better than
Speaker 1: your like like your average like a hull rant lawyer
Speaker 1: on the criminal side. This idea that miss Kelly had
Speaker 1: no understanding that this was his lawyer, that he that
Speaker 1: that this man was his advocate and not the police
Speaker 1: or a state's attorney, I mean that that's preposterous beyond
Speaker 1: a belief, basically saying that this man was barely sentient.
Speaker 1: You know. So not only did he validate his confession
Speaker 1: to the sheriff's deputies, he confessed again and the presence
Speaker 1: of Stidham at the diagnostic unit of the prison. I mean,
Speaker 1: what what what was the coercion there? He told Stidham
Speaker 1: he wanted to confess to unburdened himself or whatever. I mean,
Speaker 1: as we go on, we'll see. I he was looking
Speaker 1: for a sentence production and so I'm going to concession
Speaker 1: if you're willing to testify against baldwin an echoes. But
Speaker 1: because it may you know, I you can't uh that
Speaker 1: the claim isn't that you know, while he was looking
Speaker 1: to he was looking for a favorable uh outcome at
Speaker 1: that point because he'd already been convicted. No, that doesn't
Speaker 1: that doesn't hold up. But I mean that's not even
Speaker 1: what's being alleged. Just being alleged is that you know,
Speaker 1: he wasn't capable of understanding that he was in jeopardy.
Speaker 1: And you know, the the reality of what the role
Speaker 1: was of of his attorney, you know, cont for the
Speaker 1: police in the state's attorney. It's not it's not remotely credible.
Speaker 1: It's not a good faith argument. And then, uh, this
Speaker 1: becomes important as he goes on because he describes the
Speaker 1: He describes to Stidham exactly what happened, and this becomes significant. Okay,
Speaker 1: as I'm skipping ahead a bit because there's semi irrelevant testimony,
Speaker 1: but miss Kelly testifies. You know what he related to
Speaker 1: the to the sheriff's deputies. You know, we went, we
Speaker 1: went to the woods, we were drinking. The boys walked
Speaker 1: up and here Stidham says, did they come up on
Speaker 1: their bicycles meaning the boys, or did they walk up
Speaker 1: miss Kelly, they came up on their bicycles and laid
Speaker 1: their bikes down. Stidham? Can I stop right there? Did
Speaker 1: y'all smoke any dope that day? Miss Kelly? Jason, No,
Speaker 1: he don't, but to my knowledge he don't. And then
Speaker 1: it's unintelligible Stidham, So y'all didn't smoke any marijuana that day,
Speaker 1: just whiskey and beer. Where's the whiskey bottle, miss Kelly.
Speaker 1: Whiskey bottle busted? Stidham? You busted it, miss Kelly? Yeah,
Speaker 1: when did you do that miss Kelly going back when
Speaker 1: I was going back home after I seen what happened,
Speaker 1: made me mad. This is significant because after this discussion,
Speaker 1: Stidham went to the location where miss Kelly says, when
Speaker 1: I was walking home after the murder, I was distraught.
Speaker 1: Well words, I was mad, so I smashed the bottle
Speaker 1: under this viaduct. Stidham went there with the assistant, say
Speaker 1: Sony Fogelman. They retrieved a piece that Evan Williams bottle
Speaker 1: and it had a fragment of the label on it.
Speaker 1: They took that fragment to the liquor store. They mashed
Speaker 1: it with an Evan Williams bottle, and Fogeman actually stated
Speaker 1: off the record, he said he saw Stidham just kind
Speaker 1: of collapse at that point, like you get almost as
Speaker 1: a perceptible sigh, because he realized that, you know, Stidham
Speaker 1: was one of these guys who actually believed in his
Speaker 1: client's innocence. Now, it might not seem like much to
Speaker 1: somebody who's never defended a criminal case or to talk
Speaker 1: to these kinds of people. The devil is it is
Speaker 1: truly in the details. Ms Kelly would not have made
Speaker 1: up this whole lurid a horrible, horrible story about this
Speaker 1: sexual assault, murdered children, but then told the truth about Oh,
Speaker 1: I smashed his whiskey bottle. No, he'spinding a picture of
Speaker 1: exactly what he did. They tortured and murdered those boys
Speaker 1: when he was walking home. That's exactly what he did.
Speaker 1: He smashes him in Williams bottle, and months later a
Speaker 1: fragment was still there, you know. And like I said,
Speaker 1: I I know that people say, logically that doesn't follow,
Speaker 1: but it does. In terms of the criminal mind or
Speaker 1: the the psychopathic personality. It absolutely is material. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's material anyway because of his testimony, but you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, it's the devil's in the details. And
Speaker 1: I found that fascinating what Folgomen relayed that. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously that wouldn't have been admissible in court, even where
Speaker 1: miss Hilly already not not already convicted. But you know,
Speaker 1: and interestingly, you know, the remainder, like I said it,
Speaker 1: he reiterates the stitum, the nature of the injuries sustained
Speaker 1: by the victims, and it's it's more detailed, but it's
Speaker 1: ichdetical to the fact pattern that he relayed to the
Speaker 1: deputies in the letter, and again what I think it's
Speaker 1: highly material also that, if not as a matter of culpability,
Speaker 1: just in terms of the dynamic between the defendants, it
Speaker 1: was Baldwin that escalated. Baldwin is the one who started
Speaker 1: cutting the kid, and miss Kelly claims he was shocked
Speaker 1: by this, which I believe is true. That doesn't mitigate
Speaker 1: his responsibility. But you know, Baldwin is the one who
Speaker 1: kind of remains in the proverbial shadows because Ecchos is
Speaker 1: such a a bizarre person who enjoys flying his freak
Speaker 1: flag over a pure aisle. Let me be. Miss Kelly
Speaker 1: is held out as this sort of Boo Radley figure,
Speaker 1: like this retard who was brutalized by the police. Baldwin
Speaker 1: plays it off like he's just kind of this simple man,
Speaker 1: you know, with a mullet and a soft Southern drill
Speaker 1: and well, collegey, I've got convicted something I didn't do,
Speaker 1: all right, riddle need this Baldwen if you look at
Speaker 1: him as a skinny white boy. He goes to a
Speaker 1: southern maximum security penitentiary for a rape murder of children,
Speaker 1: and the dude thrives there. Not only does he not
Speaker 1: get shanked by some click who whacks Chomo's to keep
Speaker 1: him off the yard. He doesn't check into PC, he
Speaker 1: doesn't get turned out, he doesn't get whacked. This dude
Speaker 1: is such a fucking savage that even with that Chomo jacket,
Speaker 1: he's good. Like, what kind of psycho was that guy? Like?
Speaker 1: Think about that? And Mees made that point, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's Eccles interestingly slipped up because he and Eckles
Speaker 1: wanted to cop the Alford plea when they got released.
Speaker 1: What a lot of people don't understand is that they
Speaker 1: weren't exonerated and they didn't prevail on appeal. Essentially, eccles
Speaker 1: defense team they were able to corral enough expert testimony
Speaker 1: through these you know, these these these comparatively lavish funds
Speaker 1: they received to do so to probably win a new
Speaker 1: trial based on DNA evidence, which didn't alter the basis
Speaker 1: of the conviction as determined by the tri of fact.
Speaker 1: But under Arkansas a law, you're entitled to a hearing
Speaker 1: on DNA evidence the technology to analyze which was not
Speaker 1: available at the time of trial. So the State of Arkansas,
Speaker 1: they basically took the perspective of you can probably get
Speaker 1: a new trial, and you might be able to win.
Speaker 1: We're going to cut our losses if your client will
Speaker 1: stipulate to the facts and plead no contest, which is
Speaker 1: when Alfred plea is. Baldwin didn't want to take it.
Speaker 1: He wanted to keep sitting in prison and see if
Speaker 1: he could when you know, on a post conviction, a
Speaker 1: straight post conviction appeal. So he Echoes this big falling
Speaker 1: out and then Echos said on twenty twenty or whatever
Speaker 1: he said. You know, Jason love prison. He loved prison.
Speaker 1: Think about that. You know, the truth is not what
Speaker 1: people think it is. And a lot of instances were
Speaker 1: psychologically abnormal people are are the subject matter. But this
Speaker 1: is important. On top of being just an evil person
Speaker 1: and a devian, a total piece of shit, Echoes is
Speaker 1: at a park Baldwin and contrast is a very frightening individual,
Speaker 1: even to his fellow cons you know. And incidentally, Baldo
Speaker 1: was the youngest of the defendants. He refused to say
Speaker 1: a word to the police from the time he was
Speaker 1: arrested until he was convicted and sentenced to life in
Speaker 1: prison without parole. He didn't say a word. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's most sixteen seventeen year olds aren't like even a
Speaker 1: hood dudes, even guys who've done third in the street,
Speaker 1: even dudes who've dropped bodies generally don't know that kind
Speaker 1: of fortitude. But yeah, and interestingly, that's what Folbhaman said too.
Speaker 1: He said Baldwin never said a word. He just he
Speaker 1: just when we told him he's being a resident for murder,
Speaker 1: he said, I want to see a lawyer. That was it.
Speaker 1: Then he goes to prison that was not get turned
Speaker 1: out or killed again. He finds a home there, he
Speaker 1: thrives despite a trombo jacket. It's incredible, but that shows
Speaker 1: you what kind of monster the guy is. There's not
Speaker 1: even cool about out there. I want to make it clear,
Speaker 1: like he's he's so abnormal and so deviant. He eats
Speaker 1: people and that's what kept him alive in the joint,
Speaker 1: not just alive, but apparently somewhat content. But moving on
Speaker 1: from my polemic, the third uh fashion again not the
Speaker 1: third total, but for our purposes, I believe he's the
Speaker 1: the strongest declarations by miss Kelly of his own palpability.
Speaker 1: I'm just finding my place here. I'm sorry about this man. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think I alluded to before we went live, before
Speaker 1: I believe as a jury was being unpaneled because Eccles
Speaker 1: and h Baldwin there there they were tried together, which
Speaker 1: was an interesting tactical call, but it in their case
Speaker 1: that made sense. I the state was reading when the
Speaker 1: lines of state was hoping that Eccles in Baldwin would
Speaker 1: their respective counsels that uh attack the other and basically
Speaker 1: would make the state's case in chief for them. That
Speaker 1: didn't really happen, but it didn't need to either, because
Speaker 1: Eccles took the stand and really hanged himself and bald
Speaker 1: was sort of invisible through the whole trial, which was
Speaker 1: a strategy, but he it basically echos got him convicted too. Okay,
Speaker 1: But on February seventeenth, nineteen ninety four, Miss Kelly confessed
Speaker 1: yet again. President was Stidham's co counsel, Greg Crow, as
Speaker 1: well as a representative of the Clay County state's attorney
Speaker 1: named Joe Calvin, and a Crittenden County prosecutor Brent Davis.
Speaker 1: Because it was a Critton County case but had been
Speaker 1: removed to Clay County. You had both the offices represented,
Speaker 1: which is standard that there's a change of venue in
Speaker 1: a criminal case. There's just the way they do it,
Speaker 1: not just for jurisdictional reasoning, but it's sort of parlay
Speaker 1: of a sort between jurisdictions and any event. Almost certainly
Speaker 1: what miss Kelly was trying to do here is gave
Speaker 1: some sort of leverage for a sentence reduction, come clean
Speaker 1: on the record with the state present two so that
Speaker 1: there was no doubt whatsoever about what his testimony was,
Speaker 1: and in exchange for a reduction from I think sixty years,
Speaker 1: he caught sixty or eighty years. You know he'd be
Speaker 1: willing to testify against echoes in Baldwin. And to be
Speaker 1: clear too, even if there hadn't been the agreement that
Speaker 1: this testimony wouldn't be entered into the record if miss
Speaker 1: Kelly refused to testify, the confrontation clause or preclude the
Speaker 1: statement from me admitted you have a right to con
Speaker 1: front of your accuser, and a criminal case testimony this
Speaker 1: sort can't be introduced unless you have the right to
Speaker 1: cross examine. To claren okay, and owing to unavailability and
Speaker 1: or refusal to testify, you know that's off the table.
Speaker 1: But undoubtedly this is what miss Kelly was going for
Speaker 1: so yet again, Okay, here we have two law enforcement
Speaker 1: representatives of the respective states, Toney's offices President, but you
Speaker 1: also have miss Kelly's defense team present. And again this
Speaker 1: didn't come from Stidham. Stidham objected to miss Kelly saying anything,
Speaker 1: as any defense counsel would. So this came from miss Kelly.
Speaker 1: This guy who supposedly is this retard who can't even
Speaker 1: tell the difference between his own counsel and the police.
Speaker 1: He's devising in his mind ways to get immunity on
Speaker 1: an evidence proffer so that he can get his sentence reduced.
Speaker 1: As he's pretty sophisticated for a retard, doesn't it. I think.
Speaker 1: So that's the kind of stuff that conniving, felonious UH
Speaker 1: types of people do, exactly like miss Kelly is. So
Speaker 1: this is eight oh two pm, February seventeenth, nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 1: This is UH Brad Davis, the UH Brent Davis, Crittin
Speaker 1: and prosecutor swearing Jesse miss Kelly in. He swears to
Speaker 1: all the truth but truth as Oh be God, Miss Kelly, Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: I do. This is Brent Calvin again. However, purpose of
Speaker 1: the record, I went to reflect number one that mister
Speaker 1: Stillman and myself have talked with Judge Burnett presiding Judge
Speaker 1: over Eccles and following his case, and advised him with
Speaker 1: the proceedings. After discussing this with him, he approved or
Speaker 1: said that we could take a statement with mister miss
Speaker 1: Kelly's attorney's presence Stidham, over my objections, Calvin or mister
Speaker 1: Stidham's objections, moving on well, detesting the recording Stidham, Now
Speaker 1: we listen very careful what I tell you. Okay. I
Speaker 1: told you I had some new evidences. That correct, miss Kelly.
Speaker 1: That's what you said, Stidham, That I told the new
Speaker 1: evidence may I planned filing a motion for a new
Speaker 1: trial and that the court may give you a new
Speaker 1: trial based on this evidence. That correct, miss Kelly, That's
Speaker 1: what you said. So Stidham's advising him. Look, I think
Speaker 1: we got basis for an appeal. Don't go through with
Speaker 1: this because you're gonna hang yourself. Even if this profher
Speaker 1: isn't admissible and it's you and of itself, we're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, move beyond this. So miss Kelly goes on
Speaker 1: to reiterate because the state asks him if he in
Speaker 1: fact attested to what was claimed by the officers who
Speaker 1: were transporting him on February fourth, nineteen ninety four, which
Speaker 1: is the subject of a letter to fold them in
Speaker 1: mis Kelly acknowledges, yes, he said that. Then he acknowledges
Speaker 1: the validity of what he said days later to Stidham,
Speaker 1: invalidating that that was in fact a true aun A
Speaker 1: statement and that he did render that account and culpatory
Speaker 1: account of the murders, the rapes and murders to these
Speaker 1: deputy sheriffs. This confession is uh and somebody's even more detailed.
Speaker 1: It's obvious that even though Stidham advised him not to
Speaker 1: do this, when it begin clear who's going to go
Speaker 1: through with it, Obviously Stidham wanted the factual record to
Speaker 1: be as clear as possible because of your client as
Speaker 1: hell bent on going through with this kind of gamble.
Speaker 1: It's imperative that courting out the sciet he's perjuring himself,
Speaker 1: because then all deals are off, regardless of what was
Speaker 1: negotiated previously. And interestingly, he reiterates that the anecdote about
Speaker 1: the Evan Williams bottle, you know, and again I know
Speaker 1: that because I've heard people raise this, not just to me,
Speaker 1: but in the course of some of this footage, I've
Speaker 1: seen a fogman and others instead of himself talking about
Speaker 1: what he perceived of the significance of that admission. If
Speaker 1: people either don't understand why they're placing this emphasis on
Speaker 1: that or they dismiss it, it's it's relevant. Okay, It's
Speaker 1: highly relevant. And that's why he keeps coming back to it. Okay.
Speaker 1: I all I can tell you is that it's it's
Speaker 1: a it's it's an aspect of the human mind when
Speaker 1: confronted with evidence of guilt, and even a you know,
Speaker 1: even even very disturbed people generally the guilty conscience. Okay.
Speaker 1: And it's it's a recurring pattern, you know. And his
Speaker 1: storials are made the same Clay County Stays turned to
Speaker 1: ask some picking up the narrative right where miss Kelly,
Speaker 1: Baldwin and Ecchos enter the woods, and he says, yeah,
Speaker 1: we sat in the water. So Miss Kelly says, we
Speaker 1: sat there and started drinking. Though he heard some noise.
Speaker 1: Three old boys came up and we jumped them, you know.
Speaker 1: And then he goes through. He never waivers, you know,
Speaker 1: I beat the one boy at ecchoes, you know, grab
Speaker 1: the others. Then Baldwin intervened. Then the one boy ran
Speaker 1: I brought him back. I saw Echols molesting the kid,
Speaker 1: and and then I saw Baldwin's knife come out. He
Speaker 1: never he never waivers, and he never changes the facts.
Speaker 1: He never changes which boy he assaulted or the order
Speaker 1: in which these horrors are perpetuated on the victims. And
Speaker 1: he's telling the truth. I don't see what's impeachable about
Speaker 1: his testimony, you know, And I, yeah, I don't know
Speaker 1: what else to say about it.
Speaker 2: So one of the things that I want to mention, uh,
Speaker 2: when discussing this case is one of the experts who
Speaker 2: was called to bear you know, one of the reasons
Speaker 2: that these guys got out, Richard Afshi, who's sort of
Speaker 2: an infamous figure. He's been called in tactically at other
Speaker 2: kind of high profile cases.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: I'm not not trying to put you on the spot,
Speaker 2: but do you have anything to say about about that guy,
Speaker 2: because obviously, you know, as we go deeper into this
Speaker 2: occult series, his name will come up again.
Speaker 1: He was big as a defense expert in the McMartin trial,
Speaker 1: which is one of the longest trials in criminal history.
Speaker 1: It was even longer than the trial of Richard Ramirez
Speaker 1: and of Angela Bono was one of the whole side
Speaker 1: of stranglers. Part of I had also the peculiarity of
Speaker 1: the California Rules of Evidence, which allows ridiculously the free
Speaker 1: discovery rights. I mean, I'm pro defense as can be,
Speaker 1: and I but at some point, you know, enough has
Speaker 1: got to be enough. If she was very much behind
Speaker 1: that this effort to discredit the testimony of people who
Speaker 1: claimed that recovered memories or exposure to memory triggers had
Speaker 1: allowed them to identify, you know, their assailants. He was
Speaker 1: very big in discrediting the entire repressed memory narrative, which
Speaker 1: had real world consequences because it was a big controversy
Speaker 1: at law whether that sort of testimony could be proffered,
Speaker 1: whether somebody could say, well, I didn't know, I didn't
Speaker 1: have knowledge of this, I didn't have knowledge of the
Speaker 1: person who assaulted me, or I didn't knowledge of the events.
Speaker 1: There's a subject matter this trial. As long as a
Speaker 1: veil is subjected to a memory trigger by a diagnostician
Speaker 1: or a psychiatrist or some sort of therapist trained in
Speaker 1: the diagnostic criteria, and then subsequently I remembered these things
Speaker 1: that I'm attesting to today. She did a lot to
Speaker 1: get that kind of testimony removed from courtroom practice. But
Speaker 1: he also he didn't frame it this way, obviously, but
Speaker 1: where children were involved in testifying, he basically made it
Speaker 1: so that there's a there's a presumption that the state
Speaker 1: actors of the state, whether they're police or states attorneys,
Speaker 1: are essentially always leading child witnesses, and that children, based
Speaker 1: upon a combination of social conditioning and immaturity of the
Speaker 1: conscious mind, they will always try and please adults and
Speaker 1: always agree with authority figures, even in the absence of
Speaker 1: direct coercive persuasion. So that is what kind of put
Speaker 1: him on the map. In some ways, he's kind of
Speaker 1: the defense Council's answer to park beats, you know, like
Speaker 1: if you need in the aftermath of the John Hinckley trial,
Speaker 1: you know, Hinkley was really the last eye profile defendant
Speaker 1: to prevail on an insanity defense because people were outraged
Speaker 1: after that. How can you take a shot at the
Speaker 1: President of United States and prevail on an insanity defense? Now,
Speaker 1: mind you, even if you're prevailing an insanity defense, that
Speaker 1: means you're spending probably the rest of your life in
Speaker 1: a high security psych ward, which is probably worse than prison.
Speaker 1: But I get it. I get the sentiment, and I
Speaker 1: think that there was a lot of pseuito science that
Speaker 1: went into Because insanity defense is an affirmative defense, the
Speaker 1: eventually burden shifts to the defense. Okay, this is essential
Speaker 1: to understanding the process. But to bring it back to
Speaker 1: off She, one area of proported expertise that he also
Speaker 1: made a very outside impact in was the way in
Speaker 1: which coercion while under questioning and custody is understood. Off
Speaker 1: She went above and beyond what even most pro defense
Speaker 1: experts would say constitutes a coercive environment as regards criminal interrogations.
Speaker 1: Obviously everybody can imagine is something like John Bergen and
Speaker 1: the Red Squad, like what they used to do to people.
Speaker 1: They literally taking someone hutter at and wiring up his
Speaker 1: private parts through a field telephone like he's a Viet
Speaker 1: Cong and and shocking him or whacking him with a
Speaker 1: phone book. Okay, I mean that's obvious corision, but obviously said, well,
Speaker 1: just the very fact of being in custody is coursive.
Speaker 1: So when you're dealing with people who have been availed
Speaker 1: to say class or racial oppression within the commonly accepted
Speaker 1: paradigm of what the regime considers to be good sociology. Well,
Speaker 1: they're gonna have this instinctive fear that these police officer
Speaker 1: are gonna hurt them. Or you're talking about somebody like
Speaker 1: Jesse Missus Kelly, who is mean until he's subnormal and
Speaker 1: has an instinctive fear of the police. He's going to
Speaker 1: do everything he can to please his interigators. And just
Speaker 1: the very fact of him being deprived of a representative advocate,
Speaker 1: even if he doesn't in vocus right to council, and
Speaker 1: even if he's of age and majority, that itself places
Speaker 1: him under course of pressure. Now obviously a lot of
Speaker 1: this is nonsense, you know, but that's the problem with
Speaker 1: courtroom practice, particularly in criminal law. Criminal law can become
Speaker 1: very complicated with its fact patterns, but it's not that
Speaker 1: complicated in terms of the letter of the law. It's
Speaker 1: not you got the Bill of rights. You're basically, if
Speaker 1: you're defense counsel, you're doing everything you can to get
Speaker 1: evidence suppressed on pre trial motion because then you're essentially
Speaker 1: defanging the case in chi for the prosecution. But failing that,
Speaker 1: you're just arguing, especially in a horrible homicide case like this,
Speaker 1: you're basically just arguing facts and circumstances and mitigation, and
Speaker 1: you're tagging the credibility of the state's witnesses. So experts
Speaker 1: have this outsized significance. And not only do they have
Speaker 1: an outside significance, but you're dealing with subject areas that
Speaker 1: are not based on empirical criteria. They're often based on
Speaker 1: pseudoscience or speculation. We even if they're valid, they're based
Speaker 1: on a witness saying. I'm an expert because over so
Speaker 1: many decades, I've interviewed so many criminal personalities or psychotics
Speaker 1: or subnormal people accused of crimes like Jesimus Kelly. And
Speaker 1: based on that experience and based on my understanding of
Speaker 1: the criteria that break down the psychic defenses of somebody
Speaker 1: under interrogation, this constitutes coercion. According to the spirit of
Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment and the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: as well as evolving understand evolving standards of ethics and decency.
Speaker 1: You know, it's bullshit.
Speaker 2: So one more thing I want to get into before
Speaker 2: we talk talk about you know, what happened to these
Speaker 2: these men once they got out of prison. What do
Speaker 2: you make of the character of Vicky Hutchinson for a
Speaker 2: little bit of context. Basically, she gets pulled into this story.
Speaker 2: She's you know, been called into the police station for
Speaker 2: you know, I think, being accused of, you know, robbing
Speaker 2: her employer. Her son is in the room with her,
Speaker 2: you know, causing so much of a distraction they can't
Speaker 2: even administer the polygraph test. And during that conversation, this son,
Speaker 2: I think he was seven at the time, says that
Speaker 2: the boys who were killed, who he was, you know,
Speaker 2: allegedly friends with, were killed by Spanish speaking Satanists. So
Speaker 2: of course, you know, the police pounce on this.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: They you know, they have this woman, you know, smuggle
Speaker 2: a recording device into her house, you know, invite echols
Speaker 2: over to try and get some sort of incriminating evidence.
Speaker 2: And then this is where stories diverge. Uh the police say,
Speaker 2: you know, the recording was inaudible. H much later, in
Speaker 2: two thousand and three, I believe she completely and totally recanted.
Speaker 2: She said everything was, you know, completely made up. She
Speaker 2: also makes some kind of outrageous claims about the police
Speaker 2: that she says that the police were, you know, using
Speaker 2: the suspects as human dartboards, uh, and that she was
Speaker 2: similarly intimidated. This particular character is often featured in discussions
Speaker 2: of how this case has been you know, quote unquote debunked.
Speaker 2: So I'm curious what do you make of that detail.
Speaker 1: Vickie Hutchinson, she's the missus Hutchinson or the miss Hutchinson
Speaker 1: who bought the Ewen Williams whiskey and the beer for
Speaker 1: Baldwin and Eccles. Miss Kelly she she was it just
Speaker 1: kind of sad and pathetic lady. The totally general alcoholic,
Speaker 1: like blackout drunk alcoholic. She had charges from Bezelman, some
Speaker 1: restaurants she was working at. She appropriated a credit card
Speaker 1: number and taking money or made fraudulent charges. And yeah,
Speaker 1: she was a single mother, barely functional person. She lived
Speaker 1: at the Highland Trailer Park and Miss Kelly she'd buy him.
Speaker 1: I think they were probably, I mean, she was. She
Speaker 1: was this lady in her thirties, but she'd earlate twenties
Speaker 1: or around thirty. But she'd hang around with teenagers. And
Speaker 1: you can put two of it together. Obviously, Miss Kelly
Speaker 1: and some of their boys were, you know, messing around
Speaker 1: with her, and she used to baby Miss Kelly used
Speaker 1: to babysit her kid sometimes and she'd buy him wicker
Speaker 1: and stuff. Okay, when she was being interrogated by the
Speaker 1: police or when she was checking in bas you know,
Speaker 1: incident to her pre trial probation or whatever. There is
Speaker 1: such a thing, particularly in smaller jurisdictions, but not exclusively,
Speaker 1: and especially people who are in the drug court program
Speaker 1: or who are in some phase of evaluation for substance
Speaker 1: abuvious enter being charged. But yeah, her her son who
Speaker 1: it seems like a very sad story. He obviously had
Speaker 1: all kinds of problems and you know, owing to his circumstances,
Speaker 1: you're only about seven years old. He suddenly pipes up
Speaker 1: saying he knows what happened to his three friends and saying, well,
Speaker 1: there's this there's this playhouse or the shed in the
Speaker 1: woods where you know, people engage in these bizarre rituals,
Speaker 1: and uh, he went under this crazy story about Spanish
Speaker 1: speaking men and uh, some sort of bonfire where deities
Speaker 1: are being raised, and then his friends being tied up
Speaker 1: and shot by guys in in in masks, and I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously a disturbed little kid who couldn't distinguish back from reality.
Speaker 1: But when he started talking about some sort of cult
Speaker 1: activity in the woods, and I'll get into this next
Speaker 1: episode if you're okay with taking this to another episode, Okay,
Speaker 1: Jesse miss Kelly when he was confronted with you know,
Speaker 1: Gary Gtchell obviously was a veteran cop, and he says
Speaker 1: to him, you know how deep was this cult activity
Speaker 1: of Echos. Miss Kelly says, well, sometimes we just take
Speaker 1: girls into the woods and basically have like orgies with them.
Speaker 1: And he's like, Eccles believed in the Satanist stuff, but
Speaker 1: I didn't. But then he references this older guy who
Speaker 1: miss Kelly claimed got Echos into the Crowley stuff. And
Speaker 1: this man's never been identified. And once the trial got underway, it's,
Speaker 1: you know, the police had enough on their plate and
Speaker 1: trying three men for homicide and two trials that really
Speaker 1: does tax the resources of even a wealthy jurisdiction, let
Speaker 1: alone some small town without a real capital base. Everybody
Speaker 1: on the investigative side essentially forgot about this unknown, this
Speaker 1: unsubbed who was described by miss Kelly, but miss Kelly
Speaker 1: described him to a T and I don't know man
Speaker 1: like other than is miss Kelly a liar? Yeah, but
Speaker 1: when he came clean in his confession, he's never deviated
Speaker 1: from it and everything he said bore out. And what
Speaker 1: would he have to gained by confabulating this imaginary guy,
Speaker 1: you know, like it doesn't nothing he said to be clear,
Speaker 1: and I'll get into this next episode. Nothing he said
Speaker 1: about this unsub mitigated his own liability, and he died
Speaker 1: to suggest this guy was on the scene when the
Speaker 1: murders happened. He just said, Oh he's He's well known
Speaker 1: in occult circles locally, and he basically was a sell
Speaker 1: him a guy who got Damien into more serious occult worship.
Speaker 1: But yeah, well we'll get into the Hutchinson testimony next time. Yeh,
Speaker 1: that's cool, fair thing.
Speaker 2: So obviously you know people know where to find you substack,
Speaker 2: your website, Twitter, at least for now, we'll say, I'll
Speaker 2: make sure those are down the description I caught up.
Speaker 2: I don't remember if I mentioned this last time. With
Speaker 2: the two parter you did with Andy Edwards and Carl
Speaker 2: dol great episode. I highly recommend people check that out
Speaker 2: on your substack. That's one to pay attention to We'll
Speaker 2: have another episode of Radio Free Chicago sooner than later.
Speaker 2: Y'all can check that out, and maybe, who knows, we
Speaker 2: might do a deep dive on Epstein stuff because there's
Speaker 2: been a whole bunch of documents out and you know,
Speaker 2: I certainly have my takeaways. I think you do as well. Anyway,
Speaker 2: that'll come out sooner or later. As far as my stuff,
Speaker 2: The Jay Burdens Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you listen
Speaker 2: to podcasts. If you want the episodes early in ad Free,
Speaker 2: you have to slide me a few bucks. You can
Speaker 2: do so on Patreon, gum Road, or Substack. Also our
Speaker 2: sponsor Axios Remote Fitness Coaching. I've been snowed in for
Speaker 2: almost a week and a half. Now I'm going insane.
Speaker 2: The South is not prepared for this much ice, and
Speaker 2: so I have been to the gym and forever. I'm
Speaker 2: going crazy. But JD still has a good product. Thomas
Speaker 2: is great talking to you, man. I appreciate it everyon home,
Speaker 2: Keep your head up. I can't last forever.
Speaker 3: Good Night
Speaker 2: The Round the Bagarian Devinent Gagarian Devient Programming