long to get him out. that s the sticking point. larry: what kind of work do you do in little rock? i m a landscape architect. larry: all right. you re talented. you re bright. you re very beautiful. you can have compassion you can have the same compassion no, you can have the compassion that natalie has and eddie has and dennis has. but why and i m sure everyone would be puzzled by this. why subject yourself to a marriage in which you can t you don t touch your husband? i don t look at it that way, larry. i look at it as i mean, this is he s a lovely man. it s a different type of marriage. but i ve learned so much from it. and we do actually get to touch. i mean, i get to be with him for a few hours every week. and i know it s not the same as whatever you want to call a normal marriage. but we re closer than most people i know who are in normal marriages.
will benefit from it. i m a fighter. and bring it on. i m not scared. when it s when i believe wholeheartedly in what i m doing. and i felt confident in my case in that instance. and i feel confident in dennis case for these guys. larry, i just wanted to comment that that lawsuit was not only an example of natalie s commitment, it s a key in the new evidence that s being developed here. as a result of that, her attorneys in the civil suit were able to depose terry hobbs, who s who has and there s been dna found at the scene that s consistent with mr. hobbs. he was deposed. he swore he never saw the three boys on that day. and as a result of the publicity around that, independent and very credible witnesses have
innocent. larry: natalie, i m going to ask the same of you. are you convinced that these three boys did not do this crime? absolutely. and i think it s also important to remember in our justice system that you are supposed to prove someone did a crime, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is zero proof. there s just zero proof. and so i absolutely believe in their innocence. larry: dennis, how strong a case is this? and if it s so strong, why haven t they thrown it out in view of the fact that the dna evidence never links the boys to the scene? well, larry, almost all of the focus and concentration and
resources that have permitted the discovery of new evidence came after these three boys had been tried with court-appointed lawyers who were given virtually no resources, no experts, no ability to investigate, had been convicted and had their sentences affirmed on appeal. and if you know anything about our justice system, it s difficult to overcome a serious charge. if you ve been tried and convicted, it is virtually impossible to win your case on appeal. but once your direct appeal is over, as it was in the arkansas supreme court, the legal system really assumes that there can be no validity for your for a further appeal or challenge. larry: but dennis, the innocence project i know the folks out in new york they ve gotten almost 300 guys released from death row based on dna evidence who were convicted in courts of law.
that their each supposed building block of the state s case, each part of it has been eroded by new evidence. the notion that a knife was used in this case has been completely refuted. every component of the state s case has been eroded by the new evidence. we meet the legal standard which is if these defendants were tried today, no reasonable jury would return a conviction. have you called in, dennis, any of the people with the innocence project to aid you? oh, sure. the original testing, dna testing, barry sheck of the innocence project was critical in setting up the original testing. in fact, in our arguments on the 30th, the northwestern innocence project has submitted a brief amicus curiae, demonstratining