West Memphis 3: Free

Watch the Episode »

Web Extras

Damien Echols, left, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., center, and Jason Baldwin sit at a table before a news conference at the Craighead County Court House in Jonesboro, Ark., Friday, Aug. 19, 2011, after the three were released after pleading guilty to the 1993 deaths of three West Memphis, Ark., children. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

The fates of the West Memphis 3 were sealed just one month after the three 8-year-old boys were found dead in the woods. In June 1993, there were arrests.

In custody were 17-year-old Jessie Misskelley, 16-year-old Jason Baldwin, and the alleged ringleader, 18-year-old Damien Echols.

Stevie Branch's mother, Pam, was consumed with anger.

Asked what he was feeling, Damien replied, "Anger. Fear. ...everything in the world just went wrong...and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it."

The police were confident they had the killers. The key evidence: a statement that Jessie Misskelley gave them. In it, he said he saw Damien and Damien's best friend, Jason, abuse the three boys in a devil worshipping ritual.

"Did you consider Jesse Misskelley a friend?" Moriarty asked in a jailhouse interview.

"To be honest, I didn't really think of him at all," he said. "He was just someone that was sort of on the fringes of mine and Jason's life."

"The best way to describe Mr. Misskelley's -- capabilities -- is he is operating at about the level of a 5-year-old child," said Dan Stidham.

Stidham, now a state judge, was Jessie Misskelley's lawyer. He says it was clear his client knew very little about occult rituals.

"He walked in one day and he hands me this book...on the cover, it had a picture of the devil and said, 'Dan, who is Satin?' ...Here's a kid who's supposed to have committed the very first ever satanic ritualistic homicide, yet he didn't know who Satan was."

At first, Jessie told the police he knew nothing. But after hours of pressure, he finally implicated Damien and Jason. "I saw Damien hit this one boy real bad. Then Jason hit Steve Branch," confessed Jessie.

And then, Jessie implicated himself by saying he chased down a boy who ran away.

"He thought he was helping by adding to the story, but he...turned himself from a witness to an accomplice," said Stidham.

A lot of what Jessie said was just wrong. For example, he first said the crime took place early in the morning, but the victims were at school all day. Nevertheless, all three teens were charged with murder. In January, 1994 -- eight months after the crime -- Jessie Misskelley was the first to go on trial.

Defense attorney Stidham attacked the police -- not only for the tactics they used on Jessie, but for the major mistake they made.

"On the night that the homicides occurred, someone had stumbled into a fast food restaurant, covered in mud and blood."

That night, the Bojangles' restaurant manager reported the bloody man to police.

But detectives waited until the next day to collect evidence. And then, they lost it.

"They had actually taken a blood sample. Never got to the crime lab," said Stidham.

Police never identified or found that potential suspect. But, at trial, their blunder was overshadowed by Jessie's own words.

Jurors heard the recorded parts of his statement:

Officer: Did you see any of the boys being killed?

Jessie: Yes, that one right there.

It was enough. Jessie was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

Less than three weeks later, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin went on trial together.

"I had people standing out there screaming, telling me every morning when I went into court how I was going to die, how the state was going to fry me," Damien recalled.

Jessie Misskelley refused to testify against Damien and Jason. Prosecutors could not use his confession, because it would have violated the defendants' right to face their accuser.

But the two girls who were at that softball game that Damien attended testified that they overheard him admit to the murders.

"I don't remember saying that at the time because to me, it - I didn't actually do it. It would have been like a joke," he told Moriarty.

"Help me understand why you would think that's a joke back then."

"It's the person I was and it's the way I thought at that time in my life, and I - I can't make excuses for it."

There was no physical evidence to connect Damien and Jason to the crime, but the state had Dale Griffis, a self-professed satanic cult expert.

"This guy had a mail order mail order Ph.D," said Stidham.

During the trial, Griffis was asked, "Are you saying that this murder was held at an occult service?" His reply: "Yes."

There were no signs of any service - satanic or otherwise - at the scene. Still, Griffis noted that the moon was full and he offered an opinion about why the police didn't find much blood: "They will take it and store it. They will use it to bathe in. They will use it to drink."

But police didn't find any blood in Jason and Damien's homes.

"You can't believe that anybody's gonna take that kind of stuff seriously when you're going through it, but evidently they did," Damien says. "Dale Griffis was the gasoline that they threw on the fire."

Damien decided to take the stand.

"I behaved in ways that were very, very stupid," Damien admitted to Moriarty. "There were times when I was really inappropriate."

Unlike Damien, Jason Baldwin never took the stand. Prosecutors had tried to get him to testify against Damien in exchange for a 5-year sentence, but Jason refused.

"In essence, that would actually make me guilty of murder," he told Moriarty. "I'd be guilty of murdering Damien, 'cause that's what it woulda done. It would have put him on death row, an innocent person. And I'd have committed murder, right there in my heart. ... I can't even contemplate doin' something like that."

But even without testimony from Jason, both Damien and Jason were convicted of first-degree murder. Jason got life; Damien, believed to be the mastermind, got death.

"That was the absolute worst, absolute crushing despair," Damien told Moriarty. "And knowing that you didn't do what they sent you here for."

22 Photos

Star support for the West Memphis 3

View the Full Gallery »

« Previous Page

1

2

3

4

5

Next Page »

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. 31
31 Comments +

Add a Comment

1

2

Next »

See all 31 Comments

by pammmmmm August 15, 2012 12:47 PM EDT

This is such a sad story. These men are innocent of this crime but they were just a victimized as the parents that lost their poor boys. These men are well deserving of compensation! They wasted 20 years of their lives in prison and should get millions!

Reply to this comment

by matt6052 August 12, 2012 2:33 PM EDT

I find it more interesting to know how a person prevents the situation from spinning out of control and leading to wrongful convictions. Remember, the murderer of the dead boys has still not been found. It is forgivable that the cops might screw up on a call about a muddy, bloody vagrant at a fast food joint. But there is less of an excuse for letting the trials go foward when there was no evidence.

How did that happen? What's the experience of other organizations that prevent such things? Is a triple homicide with easily convictable defendants still too heavy a load for any small town?

The goth-dressing defendant is also mistaken to admit partial blame because of the way he dressed. Isn't that what females rage against all the time-- that victims of sexual assault should not be blamed because of how they were dressed? Still, the media imply that if a man dresses in black all the time, then he should expect to be convicted of heinous crimes he didn't commit, and that it's his own fault.

Reply to this comment

by arod99k August 12, 2012 11:15 AM EDT

American lawyers are directly under the thumb of the judges and the government, and must submit to the culture of bribery and perversion of justice, or else face terrifying revenge. Lawyers, just like you, can be instantly jailed by an American judge on flimsy pretexts, and American lawyers can be quickly stripped of their right to practice law, and personally and financially destroyed, if they dare to criticize legal corruption. Lawyers who try to fight the system can find themselves not only dis-barred, but also criminally charged and jailed, and no other lawyer will help them. It is a horribly crooked system in America.Lawyers work with judges to rob and terrify people, especially minorities and above all those who dare to question the system. The judges of America gave every accused criminal the "right" to a lawyer, not because they cared about the rights of the accused, but because it helps stage-manage the victim, with a lawyer who has to do things the judge's way. In America, government-appointed lawyers are the means by which hundreds of thousands of poor people are railroaded into prison. It is the job of the victim's lawyer to "sell the deal" that the judge has decided will happen. You will also find, in the American legal system, that you essentially have no recourse whatsoever against wrongdoing by your own lawyer. A lawyer can sell you out, betray you, steal your money, engage in malpractice, help out the other side. American judges are very devious, and use all sorts of techniques to prevent a victim from getting justice. Lots of judges issue gag orders, and bans on freedom of speech, to help prevent other people from finding out what is going on. Judges set up a trial in all sorts of ways, giving orders that all sorts of evidence be hidden from a jury, for example. The judge may declare, for example, that the evidence that proves you are innocent or right, will not be allowed at the trial. If there is a jury trial, they tend to stack the jury with un-educated all white racist idiots who will tend to believe whatever lies they are told by the judge and the government prosecutors. All of the official complaint procedures you find on the internet, or at the courthouse or in the law books, turn out to be a joke, a farce and a fraud. Complaints about lawyers in America, usually go to the "Bar", which is itself run by the judges who are involved in bribery with the lawyers. And complaints about judges go to other judges, their friends. Nearly all the complaints about lawyers and judges - tens of thousands of them - are kept secret. Nearly all are dismissed or ignored. They are generally only used if the judges or politicians want to specially destroy someone - some radical minority lawyer, someone who is not playing the bribery game, somebody who has dared to expose wrongdoing. American lawyers are directly under the thumb of the judges and the government, and must submit to the culture of bribery and perversion of justice, or else face terrifying revenge. Lawyers, just like you, can be instantly jailed by an American judge on flimsy pretexts, and American lawyers can be quickly stripped of their right to practice law, and personally and financially destroyed, if they dare to criticize legal corruption. Lawyers who try to fight the system can find themselves not only dis-barred, but also criminally charged and jailed, and no other lawyer will help them. It is a horribly crooked system in America.Lawyers work with judges to rob and terrify people, especially minorities and above all those who dare to question the system. The judges of America gave every accused criminal the "right" to a lawyer, not because they cared about the rights of the accused, but because it helps stage-manage the victim, with a lawyer who has to do things the judge's way. In America, government-appointed lawyers are the means by which hundreds of thousands of poor people are railroaded into prison. It is the job of the victim's lawyer to "sell the deal" that the judge has decided will happen. You will also find, in the American legal system, that you essentially have no recourse whatsoever against wrongdoing by your own lawyer. A lawyer can sell you out, betray you, steal your money, engage in malpractice, help out the other side, hide the evidence that proved you were right, or commit felony crime against you, and there is nothing you can do about it, so long as the lawyer made the judge happy, and the judge got his cut of any money the lawyer stole from you.American judges are very devious, and use all sorts of techniques to prevent a victim from getting justice. Lots of judges issue gag orders, and bans on freedom of speech, to help prevent other people from finding out what is going on. Judges set up a trial in all sorts of ways, giving orders that all sorts of evidence be hidden from a jury, for example

Reply to this comment

by arod99k August 12, 2012 11:06 AM EDT

The judge may declare, for example, that the evidence that proves you are innocent or right, will not be allowed at the trial.If there is a jury trial, they tend to stack the jury with un-educated all white racist idiots who will tend to believe whatever lies they are told by the judge and the government prosecutors. In reality, there is almost nothing you can do against misconduct, and even open felony crime, committed against you by American judges and lawyers. All of the official complaint procedures you find on the internet, or at the courthouse or in the law books, turn out to be a joke, a farce and a fraud. Complaints about lawyers in America, usually go to the "Bar", which is itself run by the judges who are involved in bribery with the lawyers. And complaints about judges go to other judges, their friends. Nearly all the complaints about lawyers and judges - tens of thousands of them - are kept secret. Nearly all are dismissed or ignored. They are generally only used if the judges or politicians want to specially destroy someone - some radical minority lawyer, someone who is not playing the bribery game, somebody who has dared to expose wrongdoing. Otherwise, even criminal acts by lawyers and judges get a smiling cover-up.There is no bigger group of thieves in the world, than American lawyers. What American lawyers love to do, is to steal all your money, tell you a bunch of false promises and lies, and then do nothing for you, while they sell you out to the other side. That is a perfect scenario for an American lawyer. A lawyer's goal is to squeeze as much money from you, while at the same time doing as little as possible to rock the judge's political boat. Some lawyers even make money by the "research and review" scam, where they don't even agree to represent you, but just steal your money to "research" your case. In a real court, the judges and lawyers can find and invent a thousand ways to delay and deny you justice. If not legally, they will do so illegally. They will just rule against you, period, and tell you that you lost. And then the judge will tell you to shut up, or he'll send you to jail for contempt of court. And you will be amazed at how judges can rig a court proceeding just with a series of small rulings on court procedure. Right to a jury - denied. Right to present some piece of evidence - denied. Right to cite some specific statute, or example, or a previous case - denied. Right to talk about the Constitution - denied, "Irrelevant!" screams the judge. When the judge starts yelling at you, that he is going to put you in jail, if you say one more thing he doesn't like, you will finally understand how American judges really behave. Indeed, it is nothing at all like you see on television. The judges dismiss your case or delay it indefinitely almost certainly, there is very little you can accomplish against legal or judicial corruption, by filing lawsuits acting as your own lawyer. The judges will rig the game to nail you, regardless of the law, the facts, the evidence, precedents, the truth, or anything else. A special thank you to Dr. Les Sachs - author, journalist. A 1996 San Diego Superior Court corruption case in which three judges and a lawyer were convicted of taking bribes or influence peddling. Since neither county nor state would prosecute, federal prosecutors had to do the job under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statute. Former San Diego Judge Michael Greer admitted taking $75,000 in bribes in exchange for having given a lawyer preferential treatment. Greer was placed on suspension after pleading guilty. Judges G. Dennis Adams, James A. Malkus and attorney Patrick R. Frega were convicted under the RICO statute. But in June of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned racketeering charges against Adams and Malkus, claiming the jury had been given inaccurate instructions. All of these men have remained free since 1996 as they appeal their cases

Reply to this comment

by matt6052 August 12, 2012 2:18 PM EDT

Yes, I've often marveled at how the highest profile criminal cases in the local area are defended by the same few lawyers who know the prosecutors and judges. We'd generally consider that sort of familiarity to be suspect. Sometimes, it generates good quality justice, as good as the judges and prosecutors happen to be, but a lawyer who does not share their values -- good or bad -- cannot succeed.

by astrosue August 17, 2012 12:33 PM EDT

Thanks....obviously from the inside out.

by dlgearhart September 21, 2011 9:03 PM EDT

It's sad to see CBS suppress so much evidence in order to stack the deck in favor of their preferred storyline.

It's simply wrong to dismiss Jesse Misskelly confession as improperly obtained through coercion. Misskelly confessed no less than five times, twice after his conviction. Several times, he confessed under Well-documented, controlled circumstances: calm, secure, full of fast food. One of these confessions was supervised by his attorney and willfully made over advice of that attorney, the very same "Judge" Daniel Stidham cited in the story.

And when you read or listen to these confessions, you'll get that same sinking feeling I got, that this must have been exactly as it went down: three sociopathic, rebel teens sitting around in an isolated wooded area bragging and drinking, when three innocent boys ride up on their bikes. The teens hide until the helpless boys come within the point of no escape.

Oh sure, Misskelly got some details wrong, like the time of day of the crime and that rope was used to bind the victims instead of shoelaces. But he got so much right that was consistent internally and with the other evidence: the location, the situation, the injuries inflicted, the clothing worn by the victims, the leadership of Damien Echols, the fact that there was no satanic ceremony, just spur of the moment brutality.

Damien Echols was a deeply disturbed teen with a tragic family background and a criminal history that included animal mutilation. This murder crime was the predictable next step in his progression.

We may never know what happened, but its wrong to smear the law enforcement and judicial officers of Arkansas as small minded bigots in a blind hysteria over satanism and heavy metal music.

Reply to this comment

by skeezix06 September 22, 2011 12:28 AM EDT

Once again. The police were incompetent. They bungled the case. They lost and destroyed evidence. They bullied a disabled person till he confessed. The jury engaged in misconduct. And the prosecutor appears to have been hell bent to get a conviction whether they were guilty or innocent. The real killer/killers remained free to kill again over the next 18 years.

The bottom line is that you should want guilty parties convicted and innocent parties free. I used to think that was one of the things America was built on; real justice, not something cobbled together to advance people's careers and enhance their paycheck. I used to think we were smart enough to understand that. ...But maybe not.

by vielmann August 12, 2012 6:00 AM EDT

The evidence is clear that this case was ill conceived from the start. How anyone can try and make the arguments your now trying to make just shows that ignorance is the prevailing choice for your ilk.

by MomZ2 September 19, 2011 12:44 PM EDT

We read what is given to us on the news. None of us were part of the research or in the court house or anything to do with the procedings. So we really just don't know why they are free. I doubt that a celebrity could have just advocated and ta-da!!! The judge listens. It is what it is. Several years worth of legal manuvers and these guys are free. I have no opinion either way. I just hope that no one else gets killed because regardless of whether they did it or not; the boys killer or killers are now free or presumed free since either these 3 guys are innocent and/or the real killer was never arrested. Think about that. I feel bad for the family of these boys.

Reply to this comment

by vielmann August 12, 2012 6:01 AM EDT

The evidence does not point to them in any way. It does point to the step father of one of the murdered.

by arod99k September 18, 2011 5:33 PM EDT

Prosecutors are using false accusers to increase their power, numbers and statistics. The authorities are media seeking, revenue generating, agenda driven by exploiting or manipulating charges, whether real or inflated. The general public does not know about all of the corruption in law enforcement. The current system rubber stamps criminal charges.

The prosecutors' career is enhanced by being known as a "Winner" which acts as a magnet for more high profile cases which includes a professional landscape of increased compensation and status. "Winner" prosecutors are promoted and rewarded by the governor and are appointed as judges. Any efforts to expose prosecutorial misconduct are often met with increased and intensified misconduct and a much longer sentence for the defendant. A government job for life, which pays the mortgage, your new car, good wages, overtime, security, and holidays. The main job of the managers is to ensure that next year's revenue exceeds this year's revenue. Prosecutors don't even look at the evidence but rather negotiate the plea deal based on the accusation charge sheet: number of years the defendant is facing. This brews an environment of guilty by accusation.

Rather than honestly accept that their case is weak or nonexistent, they instead choose to run with it, ignoring and excluding (with the help of the trial judge) evidence that would point to innocence, and rallying behind extremely weak evidence. Arrests are made on little or no evidence. Judges are not fair and impartial because most of them were former prosecutors and favor the prosecution. Prosecutors have withheld and destroy exculpatory evidence. The government can trick a jury into returning a tainted verdict based on false evidence. Detectives have lied, used trickery, and engaged in witness tampering and hardly investigate. A person is usually held on high bail and coerced into confessing through lengthy pre trial detention 2 years being the minimum before a trial, (See Star Chamber). There are virtually no jury trials because most cases are settled in plea bargain agreements. 95% of all criminal accusations are settled in plea agreements. The government will offer the defendant 2 years in a plea deal. If the innocent refuses, he is then threatened that if he were to lose at trial, he will get 20 years. They are not concerned with truth or justice but rather with convictions. The State Bar knows about all of the corruption but does not discipline its members. You are guilty until proven innocent; the accusation is the conviction in today's legal system. The government has unlimited resources to prosecute, where an ordinary person has limited funds to investigate, locate witnesses, and hire experts.

Many witnesses and defendants have said they were pressured into making false confessions and false statements. Some were threatened with life imprisonment and have pled guilty to lesser charges. Some said they were told that if they confessed they wouldn't go to jail. Many were told they would never see their children again unless they signed a confession. Those questioned also said they were told that their children wouldn't be placed in foster care or put up for adoption if they signed confessions. Defendants have been told that there were witnesses and that others had already confessed; when this was not true. Some defendants' have been beaten and have had bones broken in order to obtain false confessions. Lies, brainwashing, suggestibility, manipulations, coaching, rehearsed memories, and leading questions serve as the collective truth of the State. Prosecutors and police will never talk about the tampering with witnesses mentioned above in jury trials. The whole manner in which cases are handled undercuts the presumption of innocence. The criminal justice system should be accurate, fair, and just.

Mirroring the prosecution are inexperienced, lazy, incompetent, court-appointed public defenders, tend to be overworked and underfunded and hence are more likely to cut corners. Little work is done by the defense: few motions filed, few witnesses called, little or no investigative work prior to trial, little cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, absence of expert witnesses to counter experts called by the prosecution. Many private attorneys charge as much money as they can, with no results. Sometimes the lawyer's biggest error is a naive belief that a jury will not convict because the evidence is so weak. In fact, many jurors expect defendants to prove they are innocent, not just poke holes in the prosecution's case. Plenty of jurors assume that defendants wouldn't be on trial if they hadn't done something bad.

Reply to this comment

by huggies2389 September 18, 2011 12:02 PM EDT

If you weren't there you have no idea what happened, you have no EYE WITNESS confession, you don't know a thing. People stop pretending like you have a clue, from what you've read and all you've heard. You don't know and never will. Only those who were there, who committed the crimes, hold the truth. Quit making up lies, and actually believing them.

Reply to this comment

by skeezix06 September 18, 2011 12:08 PM EDT

That would include the police, judge, jury, prosecutor, defending attorney and, apparently, the defendants, right?

by threeliars September 18, 2011 11:44 AM EDT

Skeez- I take it you perfer something along the lines of the wm3 site to Callahan's. Even wm3 sites Callahan (albeit often piecemeal and when it suits their agenda). FYI: Callahan's is not 'my website'. My understanding is that it originated as a tool for law students. wm3, on the other hand, originated with an agenda on the part of some very vocal supporters of three men convicted of a horrific crime -
B-I-A-S-E-D.
Now, I'll let YOU in on a little secret. NO ONE should center their life or beliefs around celebrities. In my opinion, belief should be centered in fact, my dear. Hence, my suggestion to visit: http://callahan.8k.com
Do some real research that includes listening to BOTH sides, amassing FACTS and then arriving at an EDUCATED conclusion. If you can't do that, you are simply a mouthpiece for someone else's opinions and biases. Thanks for reading my opinion today. I don't have time to hang around....

Reply to this comment

by skeezix06 September 18, 2011 11:53 AM EDT

An anonymous website representing itself as a factual website but without anything to verify the accuracy or truthfulness of what's posted there or the identity of who posted it. BTW, I haven't gone to the WM3 site. I would not consider Callahan to be a realistic tool for law students or anyone else.

by nydbaytr September 18, 2011 10:15 AM EDT

1. Who do these celebrities think they are? Should they sit on every jury in America since they think their conclusions are better? America does not like the Casey Anthony verdict, but we have to accept it. We have to accept a not guilty verdict, but a guilty verdict can be undermined by celebrities and the media? Where does this insanity end? If we don't like the outcomes of a particular trial, spoiled Hollywood will step in to change it? This is an outrage. Will Johnny Depp now put all his money into finding the real killers? I doubt it. There is no longer justice in our country when you can be sentenced to life in prison, but you can be exonerated as long as you have special interests and money involved. What has happened to America?

Reply to this comment

by skeezix06 September 18, 2011 10:58 AM EDT

This isn't comparable at all to the Casey Anthony trial verdict.

I guess it depends on whether you want to live under rule of law which, I believe, also contains a way out for people convicted when the jury makes a mistake and convicts people of something they didn't do. Double jeopardy (Casey Anthony) is also part of the law.

If you want to see a court system of the absolute, no appeal, no reversal, I suggest you look toward Saudi Arabia and similar countries.

1

2

Next »

See all 31 Comments

Add a comment

Subscribe to this comment thread by email
SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Subscribe to this comment thread by email
Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:
Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):
Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to:

Your e-mail address:
Send me a copy of this message
Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)
Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

Popular Now in 48 Hours

video
Correspondent profile: Erin Moriarty

The War in Chicago

Get "48 Hours" on your iPad

The War in Chicago

Unraveling the lies of Jodi Arias

Murder at Sea?

Dirty Little Secrets

Dirty little secrets revealed in preacher's murder trial

Preview: "48 Hours" double feature

Suicide or murder? The death of the preacher's wife

"48 Hours" Program Schedule

Over the Edge

Muscle and Mayhem

Power and Passion

The real story behind Miami's murderous Sun Gym gang

The Preacher's Wife

The Writing on the Wall

Extra: Vanessa Bulls talks to police

My Dad's Killer

recommended

video
The War in Chicago

video
Unraveling the lies of Jodi Arias

video
Murder at Sea?

Most Popular on CBS News

Stories More »

01Port Authority releases photo of One WTC workers at dizzying heights

02Thousands of U.S. bridges vulnerable to collapse

03Massive train collision takes down highway overpass

04Super slow motion pistol shrimp attack is explosive

05Jury foreman: Jodi Arias "not a good witness"

Videos More »

01The War in Chicago

02Unraveling the lies of Jodi Arias

03Murder at Sea?

48 Hours 48 Hours for iPad^® A perfect companion to TV's most popular true-crime series.

48 Hours on Facebook

West Memphis 3: Free

Watch the Episode »

Web Extras

22 Photos

Star support for the West Memphis 3

View the Full Gallery »

Report offensive content:

E-mail this comment to a friend.

48 Hours iPad App