Mara Leveritt's website carries this letter from Jason Baldwin's attorney, John Philipsborn, reprinted by permission.
A newspaper article with a very poor overall description of the problems involved in the forensic sciences analysis of the West Memphis Three case, together with your initial response were just forwarded to me. Ironically, I am in the midst of litigation in another capital case in which forensic science issues are being litigated, with much more openness and purpose than in the West Memphis case.
I would hope, since you have commented on the problems related to the West Memphis case, that you and others who know about the case will continue to underscore that the intersection between some poorly analyzed scientific evidence and lack of inquiry and consultation by State experts and by defense counsel left a number of matters improperly addressed for years.
I applaud the Arkansas Crime Lab Director Kermit Channell who seems to recognize that the cautionary tale from the case is that errors need to be avoided–and who, when compared to other experts used by the State at trial, had done his bench work correctly, and documented it properly–even though (as pointed out in the Baldwin/Misskelley hearings in 2008-9) his testimony left the impression that there was identifiable biological material on some cuttings from victims’ pants when there was no clearly identifiable material there. The fault, on the point, however, was that defense counsel had not obtained Lab notes/or bench notes of his analysis, and consulted with knowledgeable experts to gain information about how his testimony was being shaded–and could be corrected. In other words–if asked by properly prepared defense counsel, Mr. Channell would likely have clarified that there was no way of identifying biological material on the pants because of the level of bacterial contamination on them by the time they got to the Lab.
Recent Comments