Mara Leveritt wrote something about WM3truth.com last week. Most of the article is behind a pay wall, so I haven’t read it. But she opens with a grammar quibble:
A new website, WM3truth.com presents a highly researched and highly selective view of why, as the site puts it, “The West Memphis Three were guilty.”
Since the crime and trials took place nearly twenty years ago, the past tense strikes me as appropriate. If I had written “the WM3 are guilty”, someone could have responded, “aha, notice he doesn’t say they were guilty back then”.
So just to be clear: the West Memphis 3 (by which I mean Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley) were guilty in 1993 when they killed the three little boys; they were guilty in 1994 when two juries convicted them; they are still guilty today; they remained guilty at all times between May 5, 1993, and the present; and they will remain guilty for the foreseeable future.
Leveritt also describes this site as an “effort to lay out the state’s best possible evidence—in the best possible light for the state—almost as a prosecutor would”. For the record, wm3truth.com has no connection to the state of Arkansas or the prosecution. I’m just an interested observer arguing the case in the court of public opinion. We might just as well describe Leveritt’s work as an “effort to create reasonable doubt by any means necessary, unconcerned whether the accused are actually guilty or innocent, almost as a defense lawyer would”.