The Devil's Knot The Side Of The Prosecution

As described in the novel “The Devil’s Knot,” the side of the prosecution has a lot of evidence which they believed was enough to convict the suspects of the murders of Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers. However, the most important piece of evidence to them was Jessie Misskelley Jr.’s confession. Despite several faults in Misskelley’s confession, the prosecuting attorneys believed that the story that Misskelley provided was “so close to perfect” and that he gave “so much information that only someone who was involved would know.” Although the murders, according to evidence that had been found, took place in the afternoon into the evening, Misskelley insisted that the three grade-school children had skipped school that day

and that the murders took place around 9 a.m.
Another piece mentioned by Misskelley that did not line up with what the detectives had found was that the prosecuting attorney asked Misskelley multiple times what the boys were tied up with during the triple homicide. While the boys were clearly bound with shoestrings, Misskelley continued to repeatedly insist that they were tied with rope. In the eyes of the West Memphis Police Department, Misskelley’s confession alone was enough to prosecute the three suspects.
When analyzing the evidence in terms of pathos, ethos, or logos, the information found most closely falls into the category of pathos which consequently, is pretty much what all of the “prosecuting” evidence falls into. The fact that the victims of the murders were eight-year-old boys is enough to pull the jury’s heartstrings and may lead them to make rash decisions, such as wrongfully prosecuting someone just to solve the case and find justice for the boys, even if justice will not truly be served. As mentioned previously, just because the victims were young children, the side of the prosecution knows that the jury will be more eager to solve the case quickly, even if the case isn’t honestly solved.

Out of the three young men on trial, I believe I could have best defended Jason Baldwin for a few reasons. First, out of all three of the accused teenagers, Baldwin probably would be best able to prove his innocence. Baldwin, as described by his mother was a very good student and received high grades. She also added that he was an all-around good kid. Using logic, how could a good person and student commit such a horrible crime?
Next, one of the main things that the side of the prosecution was using to find the young men guilty were the accounts provided by Jessie Misskelley Jr. Misskelley was taken in to questioning to hear his side of the story. Based on Misskelley’s report, Baldwin and Damien Echols were the main culprits of the murder. Misskelley attempted to make his account seem as though he just stood by and watched everything take place. Misskelley’s accounts were obviously not true.
This can be quickly concluded after Misskelley admitted to just “agreeing with what was being said because it made things easier.” Thus, Misskelley felt prompted to go along with whatever the detectives were telling him instead of providing his own accounts. Even the detectives admitted that Misskelley’s story had several hiccups and multiple inaccuracies.
The department knew that there were multiple errors in Misskelley’s story yet they felt it was “so close to perfect” that they had “no choice but to believe it.” As a lawyer, I would use the sheer fact that the department and the side of the prosecution knew they were using untrue accounts against the three teenagers and they used them anyway.

I would also include that Misskelley has taken many tests that prove that he is not “mentally or socially” stable and that he has the brain capacity of a young child. This can be another piece that can add that the department was fishing for evidence and happened to catch this small, inaccurate bit. I would only call two people up to the stand.
First, I would call up Christopher Byers’s stepfather, John Mark Byers. Byers had a very long criminal history which included, but was not limited to abuse, neglect, assault, intimidation, as well as failing repeatedly to pay for child support. When the bodies were found, Byers was quick to respond. He continued to go on ad infinitum, and rightfully so, about how justice needed to be found for his son and his son’s friends. However, Byers’s accounts of the night the boys went missing did not line up with virtually anything the department had

found.
This alone would be a reason for me to bring him up to the stand. My other main reason is that a pocket knife was discovered that had belonged to Byers. In the crease of this pocketknife, blood was found. After DNA tests, the blood was confirmed to be the blood of his step-son, Christopher. Based on this, one would believe that Byers would have been a key suspect in the murders, but he somehow was not. The other person I would bring to the stand is Detective Gary Gitchell, the detective who questioned Misskelley. The main thing I would want to ask him is why he knowingly used incorrect evidence to incarcerate not one but three people. The main reason I would bring him to the stand is to discuss his interview with Misskelley and how and why he was able to convince the judge that home searches at night of the accused killers were necessary instead of during the day.

In this case I can see parallels to another situation, and that being “To Kill a Mockingbird” in more than one situation. Not everything between the situations lines up exactly. For example, the murders of the three young boys obviously happened in the story of the West Memphis Three, however, Mayella Ewell had no proof that she was “raped” except for her own accounts. Mayella had no evidence either physical or in any other fashion that proved that she wasn’t lying. However, the West Memphis Police Department had incriminating proof that somebody or multiple people committed these heinous crimes against the young boys.
Similarly, in both cases, the police departments were in a mad dash to solve the case. Both departments wanted to find “justice” for the victims and their families even if they did not truly solve the case. The main similarity between the two stories was that the people who were prosecuted were prosecuted almost solely based on their interests, behaviors, and their appearance. In “The Devil’s Knot,” in the beginning of the book, the detective made a list of potential suspects. On the list included the names of Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin, as well as several other people who hung around or associated with the boys and/or their alleged interest in cult activity.
The fact that the department had a list made almost hints to me that they were not going to be proven wrong and made sure someone or several people on that list were convicted of the murders.

Despite several key things that proved that there was pretty much no way that the teenagers could have taken part in the murders, such as finding a knife that belonged to John Mark Byers that had his step-son’s blood on it, the police department was still insistent that they had found their killers. It even states in the book that the teens and the others on the list were only pinpointed because of their appearance. Thus, the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” became “guilty until proven innocent.”
Because of this, three teenagers were wrongly convicted of capital murder. Similarly, in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Mayella Ewell and her entire family held a very racist and bigoted view of African Americans, as did many of the residents of Alabama. While there was no evidence to prove that Tom Robinson had “raped” Ewell, the jury and the judge decided to use the fact that Robinson was African American as a reason to prosecute him. In both of these stories, whether fact or fiction, innocent people were wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit based on their

appearance.

In this case, no one is really a hero. While many characters probably believe themselves to be “saving graces” to the case, no one person really brought justice for the three murdered boys. For example, Vicki Hutcheson, the mother of Aaron Hutcheson, the young boy who was close friends with the slain children, volunteered herself to go “undercover” to learn as much as Jessie Misskelley Jr. as she possibly could. The 17-year-old, as mentioned by Vicki was “scrappy” and often babysat for her young children. Vicki claims she did this work because Misskelley was “not a bad kid, but you don’t know who people know…” Vicki expressed that she spoke will Misskelley long enough to get him to talk about his friend Damien Echols who “drank blood and stuff.”
As part of her investigation, Vicki was able to convince Misskelley that she wanted to go on a date with his friend, and Misskelley allowed her to meet him. Detectives Bray and Driver were notified of this and instructed her to “pretend she was interested in occult activity” hopeful she could get more information out of Misskelley and Echols. Echols eventually invited Vicki to what he called an “esbat,” or a “gathering of witches.” Bray warned Vicki of the extreme danger of attending the gathering and advised her not to go. Despite his wishes, Vicki went anyway because she believed the danger was worth the possibility of finding valuable and rare information for the case.
Upon arrival, Vicki recalls seeing several people who had painted themselves black, removed their clothing, and were “touching each other.” Horrified by what she had seen, Vicki demanded that Echols take her home immediately.
Although Vicki collected some-what useful information, such as that esbat attendees exclusively go by nicknames such as “Lucifer,” she still did not collect enough evidence to truly point the three as the culprits of the triple homicide. The main other person who probably views themselves as a hero is Detective Gary Gitchell. Gitchell was the main detective who interrogated Misskelley and got him to “confess.” It can be pretty obviously seen during the 11 hour interrogation of Misskelley was not taken seriously.
Even Misskelley himself admitted to viewing the interrogation as a “game” and that when he “just agreed to what he [Gitchell] was saying, things were a lot easier.” Gitchell claimed that Jessie’s accounts were “so close to perfect” that he had “no choice but to believe them.” Despite some blatant red flags in Misskelley’s accounts (e.g. Misskelley’s story continually changing, missing details, false accounts, etc.) Misskelley’s accounts were taken as further evidence towards the prosecution until evidence they considered “seriously compelling” arose. Gitchell also met with municipal Judge Rainey to convince the judge that nighttime home investigations for Echols, Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were crucial to the prosecution.
These led to the arrests of Echols and Baldwin. To this case, a fellow accomplice’s shaky and some-what inaccurate accounts are not enough to charge the teenagers with the murders, despite what the department may believe. There is a serious lack of physical evidence and virtually none of it can point the accused to the murders. In the case of the West Memphis Three, the police department should have continued to look for more evidence to discover who truly took place in the triple homicide of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, and Stevie Branch.
In my opinion, this case is a pretty prominent example of how sloppy police work can result in innocent people becoming convicted of serious crimes. While the murdered boys deserve justice, there needs to be extensive evidence that can convict someone before fingers are pointed.