The proceedings of September 25, 2008 begin at BMHR 204. The record
reflects that after the above testimony was presented, Baldwin’s counsel stated on
the record that the files and records of trial counsel were acquired and maintained
at the offices of J. Blake Hendrix, counsel for Baldwin, in the condition that they
were delivered in. The Court stated that it accepted counsel’s statement, and
would allow the inventory of trial counsels’ files to be made part of the record.
BMHR 207.

RON LAX

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JOHN PHILIPSBORN

[Vol. 2 - BMHR 208-321]

I am a private investigator who owns a business called Inquisitor, Inc.
ABSTRACT 60

(BMHR 208-209). In 1993, our firm had offices in Knoxville, Nashville, and
Memphis. We worked on both civil and criminal cases. By 1993, we had been
involved in twenty to thirty capital cases. (BMHR 210). We had begun our work
in capital cases with the Capital Resource Center in Nashville. I received training
in working on capital cases through seminars and training programs put on by the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Tennessee Association of
Defense Lawyers, and through CACJ, a defender organization in California. I was
aware of the professional standards for capital defense put out by the ABA around
1989. Tennessee also had standards for capital defense. (BMHR 211).
I had volunteered my firm’s services after reading about the case. I had
contacted Judge Rainey in West Memphis. I eventually got a call from Val Price.
(BMHR 212). I then met with Val Price and Scott Davidson. At first, those were
the only lawyers we were working with. I first met the other lawyers in the case
when there was some talk about an HBO television special on the case–Val, Scott,
Dan Stidham and I met with the HBO producers. Stidham and Paul Ford had
already agreed to do the movie special. I also remember being approached by Dan
Stidham about a false confession expert, and then I had more meetings and
conversations with him. I had one meeting with Paul Ford in his office. (BMHR
213).
Our job was to investigate the Echols case. We received the discovery in
ABSTRACT 61

installments, organized and summarized it. This was one of the biggest cases the
Echols lawyers had ever handled. They had evidently not worked a lot with
investigators before. They had no investigative plan. The investigator would
usually determine the direction of the investigation, and they would make
occasional suggestions. (BMHR 215). There was no actual theory of defense. We
made recommendations as to what might be done. (BMHR 216).
There was an agreement that we could share information with the Misskelley
defense. There was no agreement to do any work for the Baldwin lawyers. We
were never asked to locate or interview a witness by the Baldwin lawyers. They
never asked us to investigate any part of their defense. (BMHR 217). The only
indication we had about what their defense might be came from hearings in which
it was said that Baldwin’s defense would be antagonistic to Echols’. (BMHR 217-
218). We never gave any documents to Baldwin’s counsel, with the exception of a
background check on one of the State’s experts, Dr. Griffis. They got that through
one of the Echols lawyers. (BMHR 218-219).
Defense Exhibit 1 is a document that we created that had in it the names of
all of the individuals whose names had either surfaced in the discovery or during
our investigation.
In 1993, we would have had the facilities to search for witnesses, like Kenny
Watkins or Don Namm. We had data bases we could search. (BMHR 220-221).
ABSTRACT 62

Exhibit 3 is a time line of the case. When we work on a case, we develop a
time line of the day by day information about the case. We also develop a
mitigation time line that shows a client’s background and social history. It is a
document that is updated often. (BMHR 221-222). The time line we created for
this case had no information from the Baldwin defense. We never interviewed
Baldwin, and his lawyers shared no documents with us. (BMHR 222). I was given
access to Misskelley, and had unlimited access to Echols. (BMHR 222-223).
When we investigate and interview a potential witness, we write up a
memorandum of interview. When we do a mitigation investigation we document
events in that individual’s life. We interview neighbors, friends, teachers, family
members. We get background records like school, medical, mental health records.
We put together a social history. (BMHR 223-224).
We were never asked to get the distance of the various alternative routes
from Baldwin’s house to Robin Hood Woods, or to figure out what the routes of
travel were. I was never asked to get any phone records in connection with the
case. (BMHR 225). I did talk to Baldwin’s mother Gail Grinnell. (BMHR 227-
228). I interviewed her once, and she called me several times. She knew I was
working for Echols.
I did do some investigation about Michael Carson, but that was after the
trial. (BMHR 229-230).
ABSTRACT 63

I never acquired any Arkansas Crime Lab records. (BMHR 230-231). I was
aware of the ‘phone girls’ and interviewed them. (BMHR 231).
I was aware that Misskelley had told the police that he had and Baldwin had
talked by phone on the morning of the killings, but I was never asked to locate any
phone records dealing with that issue. (BMHR 231-232).
Part of our investigation for Echols was to try to document his whereabouts.
We understood that he was with Baldwin part of the day the children disappeared.
We were able to get a time line of where Baldwin was. We had interviewed his
brother, and I’m pretty sure we spoke with his uncle. Baldwin had cut his uncle’s
lawn at some point that afternoon. He and Echols had also been on the phone with
the ‘phone girls’ that evening. (BMHR 233-234). We were able to construct a
time line for Baldwin on May 5 into the early morning of May 6, 1993. He had
played games at Wal-mart; cut his uncle’s lawn; been at home with his brother
when his mother called. (BMHR 234). There had been some teenagers who could
account for his whereabouts, as well as his mother and uncle.
At one point we had tried to get interviews of the ‘softball girls’ who had
heard Echols make statements at a softball game when he was around Baldwin
after the killings in this case. They would not cooperate with us. (BMHR 209).
It was evident that though Baldwin and Echols were close, Misskelley was
not in the same circle. (BMHR 237).
ABSTRACT 64

On further direct examination by counsel for Misskelley:
Echols was my client. I didn’t talk to Misskelley until after his trial. I didn’t
talk to Baldwin at all. (BMHR 239).
My confidential relationship was with Echols. There was also an information
sharing process involving the Echols and Misskelley defenses. (BMHR 240). This
was unusual. Also, the defense teams never sat down and worked out any sort of
information sharing arrangement. (BMHR 241). We began working for Echols in
June 1993. We starting working with Attorney Stidham shortly before the
Misskelley trial. (BMHR 242). I first started billing on that case on December 28,
1993. (BMHR 243-244).
I spent 1,513.4 hours working on the Echols case, which is not unusual in a
capital case. (BMHR 246). There were still “numerous witnesses which we had
identified but never had the opportunity to talk to....” (BMHR 247).
We chose to work with the Echols defense because they were “the only
one[s] who called us back” after we offered to work on the cases. (BMHR 250).
We ended up doing work for both Echols and Misskelley, but the lawyer for
Echols was our client. (BMHR 251). The lawyer for Misskelley asked us to
interview the manager at the Bojangles Restaurant, and to locate and interview
several other witnesses. (BMHR 253). Some of these people were possible alibi
witnesses, though they did not provide an alibi for the right date. (BMHR 257).
ABSTRACT 65

We had explained that to Mr. Stidham. (BMHR 258).
We had also worked on investigating Vickie Hutcheson, a woman who
pertained to both the Echols and Misskelley cases. (BMHR 258-259). She had
been under investigation in another matter, and reported that her son’s three friends
were missing. The police had used her to try to get wired statements from Echols.
(BMHR 259).
We had also been asked to look into an altercation at the Misskelley trailer
park that evening which could have been an alibi. (BMHR 263).
We had also written to a pathologist, Dr. Sperry, to try to get advice on time
of death information. (BMHR 263-264).

CROSS EXAMINATION BY BRENT DAVIS

I never thought that we would be working for all three defendants. (BMHR
268-269). We figured that we would be working for one.
There were some things that we should have done that we didn’t do–for
example, getting phone records. (BMHR 273). We also failed to talk to people
from the ballpark. (BMHR 275-276).
I am no longer employed by any of the defendants on this case. I was never
retained by either Baldwin or Misskelley. I did some work for Echols over the
years up until ten or eleven months ago. (BMHR 288-289).
I don’t know if Baldwin’s defense had any knowledge of my efforts to
ABSTRACT 66

develop an alibi for Echols, or the contacts with the phone girls, because I had no
related contacts with the Baldwin defense. (BMHR 288-290).
I remember that there were discussions with the Echols team about hiring a
pathologist, but they said it was a funding issue, and they didn’t do it. BMHR 295.

REDIRECT EXAMATION BY JOHN PHILIPSBORN

Baldwin’s post conviction defense did not want me involved in the case
because they felt I would be a witness in post conviction proceedings. (BMHR
296-297).
There was no trial level billing that we generated in Baldwin’s case because
we never did any work for his defense. (BMHR 297).
My memory is that the ABA Guidelines required the use of two lawyers and
an investigator in the defense of a capital case as of 1989. (BMHR 298-299).
As for the Echols alibi, part of the problem was Echols’s own testimony
about the alibi. (BMHR 301).
Part of the reason that I am saying that it was an omission on my part to have
failed to get the phone records in the case is that if I had gotten them, we could
have established exactly when the phone calls were initiated and how long they
lasted, including the calls with the phone girls. (BMHR 301-302). And we could
have determined whether it was true that Misskelley had called Baldwin in
connection with the case. (BMHR 302).
ABSTRACT 67

Based on the anecdotal information we had, Baldwin was at his home on the
evening of May 5, 1993. (BMHR 305-306).