PDA

View Full Version : For Those Who Believe that Jessie Maintained His Guilt for Months


Compassionate Reader
04-15-2012, 10:34 PM
For those who believe that Jessie Misskelley never said that he was innocent for months, the letter linked below was received on June 7, 1993.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_letter.jpg

This is only one of many documents, including the transcript of Jason and Jessie's Rule 37 Hearing, recently posted on Callahan's. If you haven't looked at Callahan's for a while, you might give it a shot. There's a lot of new stuff there!

Cazzie
04-15-2012, 10:39 PM
For those who believe that Jessie Misskelley never said that he was innocent for months, the letter linked below was received on June 7, 1993.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_letter.jpg

This is only one of many documents, including the transcript of Jason and Jessie's Rule 37 Hearing, recently posted on Callahan's. If you haven't looked at Callahan's for a while, you might give it a shot. There's a lot of new stuff there!
What does he mean by "ruffin" (if I read correctly)?

LadyL
04-15-2012, 10:57 PM
did he write 'puffin'? as in puffing (inhaling fumes)?

~Lisa~
04-15-2012, 11:46 PM
"ruffin" = roofing IMO

OFSHE: Okay. Judging from the notes it looks to me like a couple of things happened before the subject of taking a polygraph came up and I'm looking at Detective Ridge's notes. Why don't you to reach behind you and just close

(Page 3)


that door up. Thank you. Uh, looks to me from these notes that, uh, Ridge asked you a number of questions about, for example, what you did on the day that the three little boys were killed. Do you remember that?

MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating) I was working over Ricky Dees in West Memphis Roofing.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_ofshe.html

Cazzie
04-16-2012, 12:23 AM
Roofing...as in doing roof work...

I've also heard the term "roughing in" in the construction trade, as in "roughing in" a room or building...before the final touches are done.

Compassionate Reader
04-16-2012, 05:27 PM
I'm in agreement with the notion that "ruffin" is "roofing" as working as a roofer. Just another little example of his limited intelligence. The interview with Ofshe is very interesting, isn't it?

Cazzie
04-16-2012, 05:36 PM
I feel so much compassion...I'm a relative newbie to this sad travesty of a case...

No way to feel good about it until the killer(s?) are brought to justice. And even then...it won't give the 3 each of their 18 years back... :(

Cappuccino
04-16-2012, 05:50 PM
No, but at least they do now have the opportunity to put their lives back together, and from what I can see all three seem to be enjoying that opportunity. I'm happy for them.

But there's no opportunity for the three children who were murdered. Three little 8 year old ninja turtle fans who were riding round on their bikes having fun on a spring evening, and whoever snatched their lives off them has never served a day in prison for it. It makes me spit.

UdbCrzy2
07-25-2012, 02:44 AM
I've never seen Misskelley do any interviews recently since their release, it's always been the other two convicted murderers and one's wife. I just wonder if he's not been given some sort of 'gag' order in exchange for money. Some of the victims sold their life story rights to entertainment networks and signed contracts so that the network can tell whatever they like about them even if it's not the truth.

Cappuccino
07-25-2012, 05:42 AM
I've seen Jessie Misskelley interviewed since their release.

As for Terry Hobbs selling his life story rights to Dimension Films - it wouldn't have made any difference, because after his disastrous lawsuit against Natalie Maines, which made him look ten times guiltier than any amount of hairs at the crime scene, nobody was going to worry about what they said about him anyway.

Aura
07-25-2012, 03:17 PM
So roofing is Jessie's alibi? Im confused. I swear Im not trying to bring other stuff up :) I always thought that Jessie's alibi was wrestling in that different town with the other guys? And then it was shown that the wrestling actually happened a week or 2 before? What was all that about? I hadnt heard about the roofing stuff. All i knew was that he said he was wrestling, in a different town close by, and that he had a receipt that said the rent was paid that day for the ring, but then after looking over the receipt it was the weekend before.

Cappuccino
07-25-2012, 04:29 PM
Jessie worked as a roofer at the time. He was apparently at work up till around lunch time on the day of the murders, and as he thinks the boys skipped school and were murdered in the morning he thinks thats his alibi.

Btw, it wasn't just Jessie who claimed he was wrestling, etc, it was Fred Ravelle, his nephew and about 3 or 4 other people whose names I forget. Its true that the date on the receipt didn't match, but at the same time I don't know why they would have all lied for Jessie Misskellley. They weren't family or in some cases even close friends.

Compassionate Reader
07-25-2012, 10:29 PM
The point about the wrestling is that Jessie went wrestling in Dyess every Wednesday night. Since May 5, 1993 was a Wednesday night, Jessie was wrestling in Dyess. That's why the wrestling alibi was presented.

The way I understand the whole receipt thing is that each person signed on the day/date they first began to wrestle. So, some had signed before 5/5/93 and some signed later. Some even may have signed on 5/5/93. It was an ongoing thing and more of a contract than a receipt.

Also, some people claim that there was no wrestling match in Dyess on the night of May 5, 1993, and attempt to use that fact to try to prove the wrestling alibi (based on the last sightings of the boys, the wrestling was Jessie's alibi) false. However, the truth of the matter is that the May 5, 1993 wrestling was a practice, not a match - and several people say that Jessie was there.

Venom
06-14-2013, 01:02 PM
Has anyone read anything else about Jessie's roofing alibi? To me, him having been working doing roof work wouldn't exactly give him an alibi. It's clear that all 3 boys were in school that day which would be for the time that Jessie was working.

reedus23
06-14-2013, 01:52 PM
I've never seen Misskelley do any interviews recently since their release, it's always been the other two convicted murderers and one's wife. I just wonder if he's not been given some sort of 'gag' order in exchange for money. Some of the victims sold their life story rights to entertainment networks and signed contracts so that the network can tell whatever they like about them even if it's not the truth.

I think he realizes he's not as articulate as the others. I also suspect he carries around some guilt for having falsely confessed and is embarrassed by it.

reedus23
06-14-2013, 01:57 PM
Has anyone read anything else about Jessie's roofing alibi? To me, him having been working doing roof work wouldn't exactly give him an alibi. It's clear that all 3 boys were in school that day which would be for the time that Jessie was working.

See the post above. Jessie had no idea what time the boys were murdered. He had been roofing for the first half of the day and probably assumed that that was the time frame in question.

kyleb
06-14-2013, 04:21 PM
Has anyone read anything else about Jessie's roofing alibi?
I figure Misskelley told his father that he was roofing at the time because he didn't want to admit what he'd done to his father, and because when he actually was roofing is the closest thing he had to a legitimate alibi which wouldn't place him with Baldwin and Echols. After all, among Misskelley's garbled timeline in his first confession (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html) he offers "all this stuff happened that night", and in his clarification statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html) later that day where he cuts Gitchell off to offer "It was starting to get dark" and immediately cuts Gitchell off again to insist "I remember it was starting to get dark". In the next few days he wrote the letter pleading innocence to his father, but then a few days later Misskelley confessed again (http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_6_11_93_notes_rule37.pdf), in detail, to the murders to his lawyer Dan Stidham. Curiously, Stiddam's own website (http://www.stidhamlawfirm.com/grisham.html) offers this account of when he came to believe Misskelley is innocent:

Around the first of July, Dan arranged for Jessie Sr. to visit his son in jail. He let them have a few minutes together, and then Dan raised the subject of whether Jessie would testify against the others in exchange for leniency. "What kind of deal are they going to offer?" asked Jessie Sr.

"It'll depend on how bad they need him," Dan said.

Suddenly, Jessie Jr. sprang to his feet. "Daddy!" he said, "I wasn't there! Them cops made me say that ****! You gotta get me out of here!"

It made Dan furious. "Why did you tell me you were there if you weren't?" he demanded. "Are you afraid to admit it in front of your father?"

"I ain't afraid of nothing!" screamed Jessie.

The day ended with Dan and Jessie Sr. leaving, and Dan telling Jessie he'd be back when he was ready to tell the truth.

KIM CAN STILL see the look on Dan's face the night he told her the news. They'd sat down to supper, and then Dan had rolled up his sleeves and helped got the kids bathed and ready for bed. Life seemed remarkably normal--except for the expression on Dan's face. All evening long, he had looked, in Kim's word, "dazed."

And then, once the children were down, he told her. "Kim," he said, "Jessie Misskelley is innocent. He didn't do it. I don't think any of them did."

I say curiously because it supposedly happened in early July, and while Stidham offered the plea of not-gulty (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/preaugust.html) for Misskelley in early August, later that month (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_stidham_8_19_93.html) Misskelley again described his involvement in the murders to Stidham without any notable protest from Stidham, let alone any mention of Misskelley being off wrestling at the apparent time of the murders as was argued at trial. Beyond that, there are transcripts from December of Misskelley's conversations with two defense experts who argued against the one confession from Misskelley to police which available to the prostitution at trial, Dr. William Wilkins (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_wilkins_stidham.html) and Dr. Richard Ofshe (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_ofshe.html). Those present another curiosity, as while the do show Misskelley say his confession was false in some parts, in other parts he breaks back into the murders as having actually participated in them. This is perhaps the most notable example of that, and note how Ofshe responds:

OFSHE: Now, in your recorded statement, at one point you told them that you saw Damien and Jason having sex with these little boys. Having anal sex and oral sex with the
boys. Do you remember that?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah. That's after they told me that - Ridge told me that he seen Damien and Jason have sex, then I started talking to him, and then that's when — Damien will
have one, and then Jason would have one, and they said what happened to the other one, and I said, I was holding him beating him up.

OFSHE: You did what? [15:32]

(Page 75)


MISSKELLEY: I was holding him and beating him up - beating that one up.

OFSHE: That you were beating him up?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah.

OFSHE: When did you tell him that.

MISSKELLEY: That's when - that's when - after - when Damien was messing with one and Jason was messing with the other one, then he said what happened to the other one? And I told him that I was beating him up. [Uh-huh.] And then, uh, Damien and Jason would switch to a different boy. And then, after that one was messed up pretty bad then
they'd beat on that one. Jason and Damien on that same boy.

OFSHE: But was it - the way you just described it to me, they told you that they had seen Damien and Jason having sex with each other. And then you just assumed that they
would have had sex with the little boys as well?

MISSKELLEY: Right.

OFSHE: Is that how it happened or did they suggest to you that maybe Damien and Jason had sex with the little boys?

MISSKELLEY: That's what they was assumed.

OFSHE: Pardon?

MISSKELLEY: That's what they was assuming. Cause after they told me that they seen Jason and Damien have sex, then I figured well, maybe Jason and Damien had sex with the
little boys.

OFSHE: Well, but did Ridge or Gitchell suggest to you that maybe Damien and Jason had sex with the little boys and you agreed? Because they'd told you that they had had sex with one another, or was that something that you came up with on your own?

MISSKELLEY: I came up with the one that Jason and Damien and the little boys. [Okay.] I made that up.

(Page 76)


OFSHE: Okay. Now, I mean, I don’t give a damn that you made it up. I understand about that. I think this - I mean - what we're here for is to try to find out what led up to the story however it came about. But it makes a difference to me whether they tried to get you to say that Damien and Jason had sex with the little boys, or whether you just made it up. You understand the question I'm asking?

MISSKELLEY: Yeah. [17:56]

OFSHE: Okay. The only reason I'm going back over is I want to make absolutely sure that I understand what you're saying because I'm happy that no matter what you tell me,
there's no right answer except what really happened. I just need to make sure that I get a good grip on what really happened.

MISSKELLEY: Well, I made it up with them having sex with the boys, cause that - after Ridge told me that he seen Jason and Damien. And then, -

OFSHE: If [Ridge] and Gitchell didn't do anything to kind of lead you to say that they - that Damien and Jason had sex with the little boys. That's what I want to know. That's fine. No problem. I just need to know what happened.

MISSKELLEY: I know. They didn't- they didn't lead to it, or nothing. I - I - I just made it up, I just - you know, figured up in my head, you know, that they said they'd seen Jason and Damien have sex and I assume that they'd have sex with the little boys. I made that up.

OFSHE: Okay. Now. Did you know which boys had been - well for example, here, they're asking you about which boys were raped. And you say, uh, Byers and Branch. And then they ask you, did you see the Moore boy raped and you say, no. And, all right, who raped those two boys? Jason and Damien. And that's all stuff that you just made up?

MISSKELLEY: Right. [20:09]
Ofshe was clearly intent on getting Misskelley to say he was coerced into describing the details of the murders as he did, but failed miserably in his attempts press Misskelley into claiming as much. Rather, and contrary to the many claims that Misskelley was coerced, those transcripts with Wilkins and Ofshe don't show Misskelley insisting he wasn't subjected too anything which could rightly be described as coercion.

And finally, there are Misskelley's three documented post trial confessions: to Clay County deputies (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html) on the way back from the trial, to his lawyer yet again (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html) a few days later, and to the prosecution (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html) in the presence and against the advice of his lawyers about a week and a half after that. I've yet to find any attempt to dispute Misskelley's many confessions which come anywhere close to acknowledging all that aforementioned evidence, let alone explain it away.

reedus23
06-14-2013, 04:40 PM
I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.

Venom
06-14-2013, 09:13 PM
So Misskelley didn't give a full account of his day at first? Just for when he "thought" the murders occured? And he confessed 3 times after trial? Why would he confess that many times, even after his trial?

Compassionate Reader
06-14-2013, 09:32 PM
Has anyone read anything else about Jessie's roofing alibi? To me, him having been working doing roof work wouldn't exactly give him an alibi. It's clear that all 3 boys were in school that day which would be for the time that Jessie was working.

Here is part of Ricky Deese's testimony (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/rickd.html) at Jessie's trial:

Q: Okay. Did, uh, the week -- do you remember what day May 5th was on?
A: Wednesday.
Q: Okay. That week did Jessie Misskelley do any roofing with you that week?
A: He worked with me Tuesday and half a day Wednesday.
Q: Okay. Wednesday morning, how did Mr. Misskelley get to the roofing job?
A: I went by and got him. He was at Little's Trailer Park --
Q: Okay. Who, who's --
A: With Josh, Josh Darby and Little Jessie.
Q: Okay. So, Mr. Misskelley was where that morning?
A: Uh, Little's Trailer Park.
Q: Okay. Where is that?
A: End of Avalon.
Q: Where?
A: End of Avalon.
Q: Okay. That's a different trailer park than --
A: Yeah, where I live at.
Q: Okay. Alright. You picked up Mr. Misskelley and who else?
A: Josh Darby.
Q: Okay. And do you know what time you picked them up?
A: About nine.
Q: Okay. Where did y'all go?
A: On Woodlawn in West Memphis over on Ingram.
Q: What were you doing?
A: Roofing.
Q: Okay. How long did you use Jessie that day?
A: I used him all day Tuesday.
Q: Okay. What about Wednesday?
A: Half a day. I dropped him off about one o'clock.
Q: Okay. Where'd you drop him off at?
A: His daddy's --

After 2:00 pm, according to Stephanie Dollar's testimony (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/stdol2.html), Jessie was at her house:

Q: On the day of May 5th, when was the first time you remember seeing Jessie that day?
A: At, uh, 2:00.
Q: What happened?
A: I had a parent-teacher conference meeting and he had come over and I asked him if he could watch my children until I got home.
Q: How many children do you have?
A: I have three.
Q: Were all those at home at that time?
A: No, they weren't. My four-year-old at the time - he's now five - was home and then my other two was going to be getting off the bus and I knew I would not be home in time to get them.
Q: Who was the parent-teacher conference with?
A: Justin's teacher, Mrs. Stewart, Dr. McGrew, and myself.
Q: Where was that conference to be at?
A: At Felix Elementary School.
Q: Okay, if Jessie hadn't been there at around 2:00, what were you going to do with your children?
A: I was going to bring them to my father in law's house.
Q: Okay, was it unusual for Jessie to babysit for you?
A: No.
Q: He babysat for you how often?
A: A lot - at least four times a week.
Q: Do you remember what time you got back from the parent-teacher conference?
A: It was about 4:00.
Q: Okay. Who was at your home when you returned?
A: Susie Brewer and Jessie.
Q: Okay, what happened at that point with Jessie? Did he stay, leave, or what?
A: Well, we stayed for a few minutes and then Susie and Jessie left.

This is confirmed, in part, by Susie Brewer's testimony (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/susieb.html) at Jessie's trial:

Q: Do you remember the day of May 5th?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You gave that day a lot of thought in the last few months?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. You go to school that day?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How'd you get home from school?
A: I walked home.
Q: Okay. Do you know what time you got home?
A: About 3:30.
Q: And what'd you do when you got home?
A: I went to Stephanie's, that's where Jessie was cause he was babysitting Stephanie's kids.
Q: Okay.
A: And she got back about 4:00 and we went walking.
Q: Okay. Did you go home before you went to Stephanie's?
A: No, my momma drove by and I told her I was there with Jessie.
Q: Okay. And you went walking around the trailer park?
A: Mmm-hmm. We went to Johnny Hamilton's.
Q: Okay. You know about what time that was?
A: About 4:15, 4.
Q: Did you have a watch on?
A: No, sir.
Q: Okay. That afternoon, did you keep Jessie in your sight the whole time that afternoon?
A: Not the whole time. He was probably out of my sight about 15, 20 minutes.
Q: That happen one time or several times, was he out of your sight?
A: Well the first time he went to McNease's to talk to him and then I was standing in his yard when he was talking to Louis.
Q: Okay. So during the course of the afternoon, you were around Jessie?
A: Most of the time.
Q: Most of the time, okay. You remember going to Johnny Hamilton's house for a while?
A: Yes, sir.

In confirmation of some of Susie's story, we have Louis Hoggard's testimony (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/lhoggard1.html) that places Jessie in his sight at 6:00 or 6:30 pm, talking to a policeman (which the police deny, BTW):

Q: Okay. Now, on May the 5th, do you remember seeing Jessie Misskelley?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Okay. Where did you see him?
A: At -- in front of my house and at my neighbor's house across the street.
Q: Which neighbor is that?
A: Stephanie Dollar.
Q: Okay. Do you know what time it was when you saw him?
A: It was near 6:30.
Q: Okay.
A: 6:00pm.
Q: Okay. Had you -- you, you had been at work and then what happened? You came home?
A: Came home and started mowing my yard.
Q: Okay. Start mowing your yard. What kind of mower were you using? Push mower, riding mower?
A: It was a riding mower.
Q: Riding mower? Okay. What happened? What did you observe?
A: I observed a police car going into Stephanie's yard and saw Jessie approach the car. I assumed they were talking.
Q: But you don't know that?
A: I don't know that.
Q: Okay. All right. Then, what happened?
A: The police car left and, shortly after that, Jessie started walking toward his house, down the street. I stopped --
Q: -- Stopped him and asked him a question?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.

At this point, Mr. Hoggard's testimony is interrupted by Fogleman, with an objection. A bench conference ensues. Then, Mr. Hoggard continues:

Q: What did Mr. Misskelley indicate that he was talking -- that was going on and had the officer in the park?
A: Some lady down the street had slapped one of Stephanie's young sons.
Q: It was Stephanie's son that had been slapped?
A: That's correct. That's what I was told.
Q: Okay. Did you see him anymore that day?
A: No.

Finally, there's the wrestling practice in Dyess, Arkansas, which is Jessie's alibi for the rest of the night. Several people testified that Jessie was there on May 5, 1993. During cross-examination, the prosecutor confused these teenagers, and this confusion caused enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to allow them, based also on Jessie's false confession, to wrongfully convict him of these murders. However, he did have an alibi. His time can be accounted for from 9:00 am until midnight, with very few gaps, and none of the gaps are of sufficient duration for him to have committed the murders, IMO.

kyleb
06-15-2013, 12:24 AM
Here's the meat of Foglaman's discussion of the claims of an alibi in his closing arguments (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_fogleman_closing.html):

Now, when you analyze their testimony -- and this isn't a real impressive, professional little diagram I've got here -- but, when you analyze their testimony in regard to Highland Park -- and ofcourse you can't see this but I'm still gonna refer to it cause it helps my memory. The testimony about where the defendant was up until about 5:30 is really pretty consistent. It's pretty consistent among the witnesses. But when you get to the crucial time around 5:30 or 6:00, these witnesses have this defendant in three or four different places at the same time. You look at it, at about -- Susie Brewer, she's got at 6:00 -- around 6:00 -- between 5:30 and about 7:00 -- she's got her and the defendant on the street together and at Stephanie Dollar's house. If you move down to Jennifer Roberts, she's got at 6:00 the defendant and Christy Jones on the defendant's porch. Christy Jones says that from beginning about 5:30 or 6:00 she and the defendant are on her porch by themselves for about an hour or hour and a half. So anywhere from 5:30 to 7:00 or 6:00 to 7:30, she's saying that they're sitting on the porch all by themselves. If you go down to Mr. Hoggard, he puts at 6:30 Jessie by himself out in front of Stephanie Dollar's house. Not on the porch at the defendant's, and not with Susie Brewer down the street. Mr. McNease says that about that time that he sees the defendant at this police car which is down the street from the defendant's house. And finally, Jessie Senior says that he sees the police there when he gets home from DWI school. Well, the DWI school doesn't end to almost 8:00, and if you'll look at this radio log, you'll see that the officers checked off the scene there right before 7:00, or at 8:00. Anyway, it was at a time when they had already left by the time Mr. Misskelley, Senior got home, or even left where he was. So this is all totally inconsistent.

And then when you go to the wrestling alibi, that was a total, total mess. You have Fred Revelle, the only one, the only person, who comes to the police and says, "Look, I think you all may have made a mistake. He was with me, and here's why he was with me. We had gone wrestling, it was me and Jessie and one other person," I believe he said. And -- in his first statement to the police. "And I know it was that day because that's the day we paid the money." So the police naturally doing their job, they go out and investigate to see if he's right, you know, was the defendant somewhere else? And lo and behold what do they find out? The money was paid a week before that. And they get a receipt to prove that. Well then when Mr. Revelle comes into court and testifies, the story is completely different. And he hadn't told anybody about it, with law enforcement.

Then you have Dennis Carter come in here and say, "Yeah I went with him May the 5th, I know it was May the 5th, sure as I'm sitting here." I said that, he didn't. But that's the gist of his words. And then what did he tell the police? Shortly after -- keep in mind, this when it's still fresh in the memory -- shortly after the arrest of the defendant, what did he tell them? Said "I didn't go wrestling then. I didn't go wrestling 'till after the murders had happened. Days after." Just a mess.

And then finally, after witness after witness gives these confusing and conflicting stories about being wrestling or not wrestling, you have this Johnny Hamilton come in. And he testifies that, "Why I'm sure it was that day. Kevin Johnson was at search and rescue, Keith Johnson went., that was the only time he went." Keith johnson says, "Yeah I went wrestling one time and some specific events happened, but I don't know when it was." Keith Johnson, I think, told the truth. He didn't have any idea when it was, but yeah he'd been wrestling with them one time. How do we know that's not true? Not about Keith Johnson, but about that it was May the 5th. When they went wrestling they signed this document. Keith Mercier -- I hope I say that right -- he came in today and testified, "I only went one time. I went one time, signed the form, and it was before the murders." He's the last person that signed. He had to have signed after Keith Johnson, after Johnny Hamilton. Keith Johnson only went one time. So Keith Johnson had to have gone before the murders, for Keith Mercier to have signed after him.

Also on Mr. Hamilton, he says, "Well Iím not gonna drive 600 miles for nothing." He would drive 600 miles to testify, but he won't go 3 or 4 miles from Highland Park to the police department to tell them, "Hey I think you've made a mistake." He didn't tell anybody. He didn't even tell the defense. He didn't tell anybody -- somebody goes and talks to him last Sunday and he says, "Oh yeah I remember vividly May the 5th." Where were we May the 5th? I ain't got the clue.

Compassionate Reader
06-15-2013, 01:05 AM
Here's the meat of Foglaman's discussion of the claims of an alibi in his closing arguments (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_fogleman_closing.html):

Fogleman did what prosecutors are trained to do - discredit the defense's witnesses however possible. Sometimes prosecutors actually lie in order to discredit a witness. Sometimes they try on cross examination to confuse the witnesses. That's what happened here. Then, Fogleman used that confusion in his closing argument to try to convince the jury that the witness was lying.

It is the jury's job and charge to try to ferret out which side is telling the truth. The two juries in these cases got it wrong. Why they got it wrong is up to you to decide, but I think it was the horrific nature of the crime, the fact that the prosecution led them to believe the crime was sexual in nature because of Christopher's injuries (which I am convinced were postmortem animal predation) and the fact that the teens, especially Damien, were not "normal" in the eyes of the juries, making it easy for them to wrongfully convict the teens of these murders.

terekaugelt
06-17-2013, 01:46 PM
I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.
Reply With Quote

I may be mistaken, but in my opinion kyleb just has not answered, I mean really answered (instead of quoting Fogleman's concluding remarks, which are but remotely relevant) this one. So I am eager to get an answer.

kyleb
06-17-2013, 02:52 PM
My quoting of Fogleman was never intend to answer the questions you copied from Reedus, but rather was a response to CR's argument suggesting Misskelley had been at the trailer park and off wresting around the at around sunset on day of the murders. As for Reedus' questions, I don't presume to know the answer to the first, and I consider the latter to presumptuous to bother humoring, hence the reason I didn't bother to respond to either.

terekaugelt
06-17-2013, 04:50 PM
I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.

The question that I have made bold to bold is a very concrete question. I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. How is it possible to say that you do not know the answer to that one - how the quoted answer advances your position? You yourself included it to advance your position so how come you do not know how it advances it?
The other question is not "too presumptuous to bother humoring", it is a perfectly legitimate question, extremely calmly and civilly formulated.
In fact, I truly admire reedus's patience and civility (included his/her 24-four-hour rule in my own life!), and also his/her neutrality - she/he often thanks people with different views - something that I still have to learn to do.
So (s)he put two legitimate questions to you, very politely. You have not answered them.
If you do not answer them, that speaks volumes. It's as simple as that.

kyleb
06-17-2013, 04:58 PM
What you bolded is not a question but rather an assertion, and I'm in no position to question it.

reedus23
06-17-2013, 06:11 PM
I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.

The question that I have made bold to bold is a very concrete question. I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. How is it possible to say that you do not know the answer to that one - how the quoted answer advances your position? You yourself included it to advance your position so how come you do not know how it advances it?
The other question is not "too presumptuous to bother humoring", it is a perfectly legitimate question, extremely calmly and civilly formulated.
In fact, I truly admire reedus's patience and civility (included his/her 24-four-hour rule in my own life!), and also his/her neutrality - she/he often thanks people with different views - something that I still have to learn to do.
So (s)he put two legitimate questions to you, very politely. You have not answered them.
If you do not answer them, that speaks volumes. It's as simple as that.

It's a "he" and thanks for the words. I do thank people even with an opposing view than myself if I feel their point is logical or well thought out, even if I personally come to a differing opinion. I don't always remember to do it, but I try.

As to mine and your question, I would not anticipate getting a straight forward answer.

reedus23
06-17-2013, 06:12 PM
What you bolded is not a question but rather an assertion, and I'm in no position to question it.

And I turn the page and read the response.

Compassionate Reader
06-17-2013, 06:33 PM
My quoting of Fogleman was never intend to answer the questions you copied from Reedus, but rather was a response to CR's argument suggesting Misskelley had been at the trailer park and off wresting around the at around sunset on day of the murders. As for Reedus' questions, I don't presume to know the answer to the first, and I consider the latter to presumptuous to bother humoring, hence the reason I didn't bother to respond to either.

The problem with quoting Fogleman's closing remarks in order to prove that Jessie wasn't at Dyess practicing wrestling is that Fogleman wasn't at Dyess. So, he doesn't know for a fact if Jessie was or not. As a prosecutor, in those closing remarks, he is simply reiterating the twisted version of events that he "coached" the witnesses, who were there, into saying. Again, this is what Fogleman is supposed to do. It simply doesn't make it true! Finally, I don't see how quoting Jessie as saying that he made up the story about Jason and Damien having sex with Christopher, Michael and Steven after Ridge told him that Damien and Jason were having sex proves Jessie's veracity. IMO, it simply shows how confused he was!

kyleb
06-17-2013, 09:18 PM
Well you've apparently misconstrued my reasons for quoting Misskelley's conversation with Ofshe and Fogleman's closing arguments. I don't imagine any amount of explanation could change that though, so I'm not going to bother trying.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 12:08 AM
The problem with quoting Fogleman's closing remarks in order to prove that Jessie wasn't at Dyess practicing wrestling is that Fogleman wasn't at Dyess. So, he doesn't know for a fact if Jessie was or not. As a prosecutor, in those closing remarks, he is simply reiterating the twisted version of events that he "coached" the witnesses, who were there, into saying. Again, this is what Fogleman is supposed to do. It simply doesn't make it true! Finally, I don't see how quoting Jessie as saying that he made up the story about Jason and Damien having sex with Christopher, Michael and Steven after Ridge told him that Damien and Jason were having sex proves Jessie's veracity. IMO, it simply shows how confused he was!

The goal of a prosecutor isn't to always get a witness to recant a story. Just get the witness to say 1 or 2 things that you can attack and hold out as gospel in closing, ignoring the remainder of their testimony. It is kind of like if someone tells you that a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence demonstrates that the WM3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the meantime ignore a vast majority of the evidence that doesn't support the theory. Similarly, the prosecutor's job in that instance, is to get you to believe you are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 01:48 AM
Might be somewhat off topic, but deals with the initial recorded statement. Was just listening to it again and not sure why I didn't notice it before, but it seems obvious that they knew they were dealing with someone with diminished mental faculties when they had to ask Jessie twice if he knew what a penis was. My kids have known what a penis is for years now and they're both younger than Jessie was at the time. Why the need to ask someone his age if he knows what a penis is unless you already question his mental faculties.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 04:04 AM
It is kind of like if someone tells you that a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence demonstrates that the WM3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the meantime ignore a vast majority of the evidence that doesn't support the theory.
Theories are only disproved by evidence which contradicts them, and exist among many facts which don't support them. For instance, OJ Simpson struggling to get the glove on does nothing to refute the theory that he murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, nor does the fact that the Earth is essentially spherical or the vast majority of other facts. South Park did a fine job of exemplifying this with their Chewbacca defense (http://youtu.be/xwdba9C2G14).

Similarly, the prosecutor's job in that instance, is to get you to believe you are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony.
Such deception plays no part in the job of of a prosecutor, and to the contrary prosecutors are ethically bound (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor. html) to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause". That is inherently a prohibition against prospecting individuals who have credible alibis that put them somewhere other than the scene of the crime. So for Fogleman to have done what you've imagined was his job would in realty be a gross violation of ethics, but of course you've come nowhere close to actually demonstrating what you claimed, and I've yet to find anyone who has.

Oh, and yeah, of course your more recent post is off topic here, but if you bother to make a new thread about it I'd be happy to join the discussion.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 10:48 AM
Such deception plays no part in the job of of a prosecutor, and to the contrary prosecutors are ethically bound (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor. html) to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause". That is inherently a prohibition against prospecting individuals who have credible alibis that put them somewhere other than the scene of the crime. So for Fogleman to have done what you've imagined was his job would in realty be a gross violation of ethics, but of course you've come nowhere close to actually demonstrating what you claimed, and I've yet to find anyone who has.

Oh, and yeah, of course your more recent post is off topic here, but if you bother to make a new thread about it I'd be happy to join the discussion.

Talking apples and oranges kyle. First, I don't consider it deception. It's closing arguments and they are, in fact, arguing the facts. They did, in fact, get the witness to make those 1 or 2 statements. They simply choose to draw attention away from the rest of the testimony. It is similar to someone starting a thread to discuss occult motives that have little to do with the case by nearly everyone's admission in order to draw attention away from and avoid talking about the larger concerns with the case. There is nothing wrong with it(in fact, in ways I admire it), but it is something that all lawyers do, on both sides. That's simply their job.

Regarding your rule citation, closing arguments have nothing to do with bringing charges that are not supported by probably cause. Fogleman's concerns regarding probable cause were essentially eliminated when the Judge signed off on the arrest warrants. That's also why the Judge would NOT sign off on them originally and made them go back to change Jessie's story. Having said that, I do think he walked a fine line, but prosecutors have to do that routinely.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 01:01 PM
First, I don't consider it deception.
You don't don't consider getting others to believe they "are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony" to be deceptive? You don't consider it deception to trick people into believing they are doing something other than what they actually are? That's rich.

It is similar to someone starting a thread to discuss occult motives that have little to do with the case by nearly everyone's admission in order to draw attention away from and avoid talking about the larger concerns with the case.
Of course anyone who looks at my Echols' occult motives thread should be able to see I only created it in response to others bringing up Griffis, a subject which really has nothing to do with the murder of these three young boys. So, I made a thread to bring the discussion back towards a subject which is related to the murders, the subject of motive.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 03:24 PM
You don't don't consider getting others to believe they "are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony" to be deceptive? You don't consider it deception to trick people into believing they are doing something other than what they actually are? That's rich.


Of course anyone who looks at my Echols' occult motives (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212300) thread should be able to see I only created it in response to others bringing up Griffis, a subject which really has nothing to do with the murder of these three young boys. So, I made a thread to bring the discussion back towards a subject which is related to the murders, the subject of motive.

You better move then, because that is one of the foundations of our justice system. That is why there are lawyers on both sides. That is why they call it closing ARGUMENTS. The prosecutor isn't there to make the case for their innocence. The defense attorneys, if they're doing their job, are there to point out that evidence that points toward doubt or innocence that the prosecutor didn't mention. I dare you to find me one closing argument in which a prosecutor makes an argument for innocence.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 03:55 PM
You better move then, because that is one of the foundations of our justice system.
Deception has always played a part in legal systems, but it's never been the foundation of one, ours or any other. Again, the ethics guidelines I quoted previously demonstrate actual foundations of our legal system, and prosecuting people who have legitimate alibis putting them at somewhere other than the scene of the crime is a gross violation of those foundations. Furthermore, you say I'd " better move then"? You're deceiving yourself if you imagine that you're going to accomplish anything by telling me what to do.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 05:02 PM
Deception has always played a part in legal systems, but it's never been the foundation of one, ours or any other. Again, the ethics guidelines I quoted previously demonstrate actual foundations of our legal system, and prosecuting people who have legitimate alibis putting them at somewhere other than the scene of the crime is a gross violation of those foundations. Furthermore, you say I'd " better move then"? You're deceiving yourself if you imagine that you're going to accomplish anything by telling me what to do.

Again, bringing charges has nothing to do with closing arguments. I agree with what the rule says and stands for but that has nothing to do with what a prosecutor argues in closing arguments. At that point, it is an adversarial system for a reason and it is that adversarial system which is part of the foundation of our legal system, not deception as you would have others believe I am saying.

As for bringing charges in the first place...yes, I agree, if the prosecutor knows that a person is innocent, it is unethical for him/her to bring charges. Getting back to the case at hand...do you know what steps the prosecution took and when to determine if the WM3's alibi witnesses were believable?

p.s. Ok, you can stay.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 05:17 PM
Again, bringing charges has nothing to do with closing arguments.
That's absurd. Prosecutors are ethically bound do drop the case if evidence of actual innocence emerges, and even to go back and rectify the injustice if such evidence surfaces after a conviction. To insist Fogleman made his closing arguments after a legitimate alibi was presented in court implies he either violated his ethical duties or was incompetent. Of course you've never come close to demonstrating either, and neither as anyone else I've yet to come across.

Compassionate Reader
06-18-2013, 05:31 PM
Getting back to the case at hand...do you know what steps the prosecution took and when to determine if the WM3's alibi witnesses were believable?

I think that this question might have been overlooked, and it is a very good one.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 05:37 PM
Well there's what Fogleman explained in his closing arguments, and he referred to a diagram he'd made there, but I've yet to see it. That said, I'm more interested in hearing how supporters came to conclude the alibis are legitimate. Has supported manage to come up with anything notable in that regard, perhaps charts of their own? If so, please share.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 05:40 PM
That's absurd. Prosecutors are ethically bound do drop the case if evidence of actual innocence emerges, and even to go back and rectify the injustice if such evidence surfaces after a conviction. To insist Fogleman made his closing arguments after a legitimate alibi was presented in court implies he either violated his ethical duties or was incompetent. Of course you've never come close to demonstrating either, and neither as anyone else I've yet to come across.

You are still comparing apples to oranges but now you're throwing them creating moving targets too. On second thought, you are right, Fogleman should have argued more vigorously that Jessie was, in fact, in Dyess that evening as the witnesses said. On third thought, you are right, Fogleman should have followed the eithical guidelines and dismissed the charges at the time. It would have prevented a grave injustice to both the WM3 and the 3 boys.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 05:42 PM
Actually, you're misinterpreting what I've said. Flagrantly.

reedus23
06-18-2013, 05:43 PM
Well there's what Fogleman explained in his closing arguments, and he referred to a diagram he'd made there, but I've yet to see it. That said, I'm more interested in hearing how supporters came to conclude the alibis are legitimate. Has supported manage to come up with anything notable in that regard, perhaps charts of their own? If so, please share.

Well, you would like to think that they at least interviewed them all before making the arrests. Did LE at least do that?

reedus23
06-18-2013, 05:44 PM
Actually, you're misinterpreting what I've said. Flagrantly.

Then we are both on completely different pages and I, for one at least, am moving on.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 05:53 PM
Well I'm going to keep looking for people who can substantiate the beliefs you incorrectly projected on me, and I'll adopt those beliefs if I ever find any such substantiation, but I won't be holding my breath.

Compassionate Reader
06-18-2013, 06:02 PM
Well I'm going to keep looking for people who can substance[sic] the beliefs you incorrectly projected on me, and I'll adopt those beliefs if I ever find any such substantiation, but I won't be holding my breath.

The problem I'm having here is that you haven't substantiated your beliefs, IMO. Until you can do that, IMO, it will be difficult to rationally explain other beliefs because, if a person holds on to his/her beliefs irrationally, he/she cannot be swayed from those beliefs.

An open mind is necessary in order to change it. IMO, you don't appear to have one wrt this case. So, when you can demonstrate an open mind, I'd be glad to explain my "beliefs" about this crime, but I won't be holding my breath, either.

kyleb
06-18-2013, 06:34 PM
I'm not asking for a personalized explanation from you, and my existence has no bearing on whether or not anyone has produced what I've asked for at all. That said, thanks for catching my spellcheck error, dyslexia and a sloppy mouse hand leave my typing rather mangled at times.

SmoothOperator
06-18-2013, 07:29 PM
Just my very own personal opinion in living in Memphis and having followed the case from the onset, is that Jessie will be the one who again confesses that he, Damien, and Jason are the three individuals who murdered Stevie, Chris, and Michael..

Not that it will matter much to many because even if/when Jessie does once again confess it will just be due to his being "mentally challenged", coerced, and/or manipulated into yet another false confession. Fact is Jessie is not mentally retarded, not even borderline retarded, but IMO what Jessie is that so differs from the other two is that he has a conscience that's heavily weighted by what he participated in doing that May day in 1993 in being directly involved in killing Stevie, Chris, and Michael..

There is a very telling statement made by Jessie that IMO leaves zero doubt he was present when those three were killed. He makes a statement about one of the last things he saw prior to his leaving the crime scene that day.. he states that he saw that one of the three boys was still moving although hogtied and in the creek water.. IMO this statement he made of his seeing this is something that is forever burned into his mind.. and IMO so it should..

Tho, I personally have no compassion for Jessie in his direct role he played in murdering Stevie, Chris, and Michael.. I do however believe that he is heavily, heavily burdened for what he did that day..whereas IMO the other two have no remorse, no conscience, and certainly carry no burden for what they did that May day in 1993..

gheckso
06-18-2013, 08:01 PM
Not that it will matter much to many because even if/when Jessie does once again confess it will just be due to his being "mentally challenged", coerced, and/or manipulated into yet another false confession. Fact is Jessie is not mentally retarded, not even borderline retarded, but IMO what Jessie is that so differs from the other two is that he has a conscience that's heavily weighted by what he participated in doing that May day in 1993 in being directly involved in killing Stevie, Chris, and Michael..



I don't see how this wouldn't matter to many as he is now in a completely different situation as he was when he originally made these "confessions". IMO if he was to confess now or in the future I believe many people would take his statements more seriously, although I on the other hand, don't believe he will do so.

Is it fact Jessie is not mentally retarded or borderline retarded? I thought everyone was on common ground with Jessie being mentally challenged to some degree.

reedus23
06-19-2013, 01:14 AM
The problem I'm having here is that you haven't substantiated your beliefs, IMO. Until you can do that, IMO, it will be difficult to rationally explain other beliefs because, if a person holds on to his/her beliefs irrationally, he/she cannot be swayed from those beliefs.

An open mind is necessary in order to change it. IMO, you don't appear to have one wrt this case. So, when you can demonstrate an open mind, I'd be glad to explain my "beliefs" about this crime, but I won't be holding my breath, either.

This times one million.

reedus23
06-19-2013, 01:19 AM
Just my very own personal opinion in living in Memphis and having followed the case from the onset, is that Jessie will be the one who again confesses that he, Damien, and Jason are the three individuals who murdered Stevie, Chris, and Michael..

Not that it will matter much to many because even if/when Jessie does once again confess it will just be due to his being "mentally challenged", coerced, and/or manipulated into yet another false confession. Fact is Jessie is not mentally retarded, not even borderline retarded, but IMO what Jessie is that so differs from the other two is that he has a conscience that's heavily weighted by what he participated in doing that May day in 1993 in being directly involved in killing Stevie, Chris, and Michael..

There is a very telling statement made by Jessie that IMO leaves zero doubt he was present when those three were killed. He makes a statement about one of the last things he saw prior to his leaving the crime scene that day.. he states that he saw that one of the three boys was still moving although hogtied and in the creek water.. IMO this statement he made of his seeing this is something that is forever burned into his mind.. and IMO so it should..

Tho, I personally have no compassion for Jessie in his direct role he played in murdering Stevie, Chris, and Michael.. I do however believe that he is heavily, heavily burdened for what he did that day..whereas IMO the other two have no remorse, no conscience, and certainly carry no burden for what they did that May day in 1993..

SmoothOperator...while I might have a differing opinion, I can respect your analysis and opinion and just as importantly, the manner in which you put forth your opinion. Simply the manner in which you put forth your opinion and some of the reasons for having reached that opinion does give food for thought and is much more persuasive than the manner used by others.

reedus23
06-19-2013, 01:21 AM
I don't see how this wouldn't matter to many as he is now in a completely different situation as he was when he originally made these "confessions". IMO if he was to confess now or in the future I believe many people would take his statements more seriously, although I on the other hand, don't believe he will do so.

Is it fact Jessie is not mentally retarded or borderline retarded? I thought everyone was on common ground with Jessie being mentally challenged to some degree.

I'll defer to the experts on what label they want to slap on him. What I know is that he isn't the swiftest a foot mentally. He needed prompting at the Alford Plea hearing, much less giving his statement.

kyleb
06-19-2013, 03:16 AM
Just my very own personal opinion in living in Memphis and having followed the case from the onset
It's great to see a comment from someone whose been so close to the case for so long, particularly for someone like myself who only started looking into the case less than four months ago. That said, I'm in complete agreement with your opinion, aside from the least bit about compassion. While I've less compassion for child murders that most anyone, I've compassion for all life, even the least of us. I suppose the fact that my father participated in slaughtering of whole villages in Vietnam plays large role in that perspective, as it would be hypocritical of me to have no compassion for other murders while still loving my father. And of course my father doesn't consider what he did to be murder, as it took place in the context of war, and he's convinced to this day that he did what was required to fight off the dreaded Red Menace, but I'm not one to mice words: murder is murder.

Anyway, I'm curious to know if you've ever seen The Case Against the WM3 (http://wm3truth.com/the-west-memphis-three-were-guilty/) at WM3 Truth? As that is the source which changed my opinion on the convicted from likely innocent to obviously guilty, I'd like to hear and opinion on it from someone whose been so close to the case for so long and also agrees that the three committed the murders beyond any reasonable doubt. Also, if you've come across any other notable information regarding the murders over the decades which you suspect the rest of us might not be aware of, please share.

Mrs G Norris
06-19-2013, 03:46 AM
Just my very own personal opinion in living in Memphis and having followed the case from the onset, is that Jessie will be the one who again confesses that he, Damien, and Jason are the three individuals who murdered Stevie, Chris, and Michael..

Not that it will matter much to many because even if/when Jessie does once again confess it will just be due to his being "mentally challenged", coerced, and/or manipulated into yet another false confession. Fact is Jessie is not mentally retarded, not even borderline retarded, but IMO what Jessie is that so differs from the other two is that he has a conscience that's heavily weighted by what he participated in doing that May day in 1993 in being directly involved in killing Stevie, Chris, and Michael..

There is a very telling statement made by Jessie that IMO leaves zero doubt he was present when those three were killed. He makes a statement about one of the last things he saw prior to his leaving the crime scene that day.. he states that he saw that one of the three boys was still moving although hogtied and in the creek water.. IMO this statement he made of his seeing this is something that is forever burned into his mind.. and IMO so it should..

Tho, I personally have no compassion for Jessie in his direct role he played in murdering Stevie, Chris, and Michael.. I do however believe that he is heavily, heavily burdened for what he did that day..whereas IMO the other two have no remorse, no conscience, and certainly carry no burden for what they did that May day in 1993..

I agree Smoothoperator, I think that is why there were numerous reports of Jessie's crying fits after the crime, he genuinely felt terrible about it.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/cdabbs.html
http://callahan.8k.com/images/report_06-07-93.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/rush_l_tankersley.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_lucas_interview.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmir.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html

DETECTIVE RIDGE: You've been back to this place since that murder?
*A187 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Since it took (unintelligible) place. What did you do while you were there? And be truthful.
*A188 MISSKELLEY: I went down there, I just sit there, and after what they did to the boys, I just sit there
DETECTIVE RIDGE: And did what?
*A189 MISSKELLEY: Just thought, what they, what happened to them real bad, I just thought.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay.
*A190 MISSKELLEY: And then I left and stuff.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: And stuff?
*A191 MISSKELLEY: Left and walked home.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: When did you go back there? Out.
*A192 MISSKELLEY: Two or three days after it happened, and I left.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: You were there by yourself?
*A193 MISSKELLEY: I was there by myself.

I wonder too if he will speak up again in the future.

kyleb
06-19-2013, 04:13 AM
In regard to moments of conscience, I also suspect Misskelley's stumbling after after saying "although I am innocent" when entering his Alford plea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6a82xmWmE&feature=player_detailpage#t=303s) was a moment of conscience. Then there's Baldwin's moments of uncomfortable silence when asked what he'd say to the parents of the boys (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enIDjxM1ldw) here, and when discussing the trial with his lawyer with awaiting the verdicts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5cL14i1bHs), both of which seem indicative of at least some semblance of conscience to me. I can't say I've seen anything of the sort from Echols though.

Compassionate Reader
06-19-2013, 11:01 PM
Wrt Jessie's mental abilities, the problem is in terminology. Jessie is reported to have an IQ of 72. Since, for privacy reasons, the educational system cannot verify this, many have relied on Mara Leveritt's extensive research for her book, Devil's Knot. She questioned some of Jessie's former teachers who gave her the IQ information. He was also tested by Dr. William Wilkins (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins1.html) who also documented an IQ of 72. Since Arkansas, like most states, doesn't recognize someone as being "retarded" unless the IQ is below 70, technically, Jessie isn't "retarded" but is definitely "borderline retarded" which encompasses IQ's in the 70 - 79 range. (FYI, an "average" IQ is 100.) Here is a source (http://www.k12academics.com/disorders-disabilities/development-delay/iq-range) for my assertion. So, I would contend that Jessie's mental deficiencies are established. Obviously, listening to him, especially at the Alford hearing, as was pointed out, should be sufficient indication of his "slow" thinking processes.

ETA: In order to find Wilkins' reference to the IQ test he gave to Jessie, you must wade through vast amounts of the prosecution's attempt to impeach the doctor by bringing up unrelated and irrelevant issues regarding him. Some of these issues are discussed in the hearing (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/wilkins_hearing.html) held in chambers before he testified. IMO, this is just another example of the farcical nature of this trial.

kyleb
06-20-2013, 12:40 AM
The topic of Misskelley's reported IQ is one of the reasons I doubt Berlinger and Sinofsky were internally trying to mislead anyone with their movies. As if they were they surely wouldn't have included this segment (http://youtu.be/Rwb_59P7cts?t=12m59s) where Misskelley's lawyer explains the testing which they plan to do and goes on to say were Stidham says "if the court determines that you are operating below average, then there's a possibility that the court will not be allowed, or the state will not be allowed, to impose the death penalty". Surely if Berlinger and Sinofsky had intended to mislead they would've excluded that footage of Misskelley being told that he could get off easy by doing poorly on his intellectual and psychological testing.

Also, while there's nothing built into IQ tests to determine if a subject is internally doing poorly, there an indicator built into another of the tests Misskelley was given at that time though which Wilkins explained during cross examination (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html):


DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?

WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.

DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?

WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.

DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.

WILKINS: Uh, very high.

DAVIS: Very high?

WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.

DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?

WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.

DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?

WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
Then there's another scene in Paradise Lost which shows Misskelley has at least the intellectual capacity to very effectively smooth talk a girl (http://youtu.be/Rwb_59P7cts?t=35m.). Given the above facts, while Misskelley is obviously far from the sharpest tool in the shed, claims that his IQ is 72 are dubious at best.

reedus23
06-20-2013, 12:57 AM
I am glad to see we can agree that...


Misskelley is obviously far from the sharpest tool in the shed

Mrs G Norris
06-20-2013, 01:30 AM
^^ So is this an option for the Common Ground thread? I think we can ALL agree on that :)

kyleb
06-20-2013, 02:25 AM
Back to the matter of Misskelley's conscience, I've never seen him engage in any of the finger pointing at parents of the victims, unlike Baldwin, Echols, and so many of their supporters have. So, has anyone here ever seen Misskelley cast suspicion on Mark Byers and/or Terry Hobbs, or has he kept silent throughout all of that?

Compassionate Reader
06-20-2013, 01:45 PM
Someone with Jessie's diminished mental capabilities simply didn't understand what Stidham was saying about "If they find, etc." Yes, he said he understood, but he didn't! Again, I know this from 25 years' experience teaching students just like Jessie (Damien and Jason, too, BTW). The "slow" students constantly strive to push the spotlight off of themselves because they don't want others to recognize their shortcomings.

Unfortunately, sometimes that keeps them from getting the help they need, but it's too often what happens. It takes someone with an extreme amount of patience and a lot of time to discover the problem and address it. So, it doesn't matter what Jessie said to his attorney. The sad fact is that Jessie can't tell a cohesive story, doesn't understand the "big words" used by many around him and should never have been tried as he was because of his diminished capacities. The fact that the wmpd denied knowing of his mental condition is, IMO, one of the most heinous aspects of this sorry case.

ETA: As to Jessie's lack of "finger pointing," again that is an outgrowth of his wish to remain in the background. He wouldn't want to be interviewed, again because it would point out his mental deficiency. Some people might not like that answer, but, based on my experience, it's the truth.

gheckso
06-20-2013, 06:44 PM
Back to the matter of Misskelley's conscience, I've never seen him engage in any of the finger pointing at parents of the victims, unlike Baldwin, Echols, and so many of their supporters have. So, has anyone here ever seen Misskelley cast suspicion on Mark Byers and/or Terry Hobbs, or has he kept silent throughout all of that?

I agree that many supporters have directly finger pointed at certain parents, however I have not heard Echols or Baldwin directly finger point anyone in particular. I remember one interview where Echols completely avoids finger pointing and relates that a re-investigation of all evidence will be speak for itself, I've heard them mention Hobb's name in relation to recent discoveries but not flat out finger pointing.

I'm not saying they haven't done so as I'm not as familiar with this case as some, I just haven't seen them do so in a direct manner.

reedus23
06-20-2013, 06:51 PM
I agree that many supporters have directly finger pointed at certain parents, however I have not heard Echols or Baldwin directly finger point anyone in particular. I remember one interview where Echols completely avoids finger pointing and relates that a re-investigation of all evidence will be speak for itself, I've heard them mention Hobb's name in relation to recent discoveries but not flat out finger pointing.

I'm not saying they haven't done so as I'm not as familiar with this case as some, I just haven't seen them do so in a direct manner.

And that's the thing to me. It's not about wanting to lay it all on John or Jane Doe. It's about the fact that there is good enough reason to look further into the case. If it turns out the WM3 did it. So be it. If it turns out John Doe did it, then prosecute him. If it turns out someone nobody ever thought of did it, prosecute them. The three murdered boys deserve that much.

kyleb
06-20-2013, 07:54 PM
Neither of you have watched PL2, particularly the part where Kathy Bakken swoons over Echols while asking him about Mark Byers?

Paradise Lost-Revelations - YouTube

Bakken: What do you think of Byers?

Echols: I think Byers is the fakest creature who ever walked on two legs. I don't think there is a true thing about him. He puts on all these false faces, he'll act one way whenever they have cameras on him and another way when he's by himself, and he has about thirty different faces.

Bakken: So seeing him in the movie didn't change how, any. your opinions about him?

Well I think it reinforced the opinions I have about him. I still believe with all my heart that he is the person who killed those three children, and I have no sympathy for Byers. I'm sitting here on death row for a crime he committed. That alone is enough for me to have no sympathy for him, but also the fact that he killed three little kids.

Bakken: Do you think Mellisa had anything to do with it?

Echols: I don't think she actually participated in the act of killing them, but I think she participated in covering it up. I firmly believe she knew, and that's why she's dead now.

Bakken: If you could say, if you could give Byers a message what would it be?

Echols: I wouldn't say anything to Mark Byers. Mark Byers in beneath me. He doesn't even deserve my contempt.
That certainly wasn't about wanting to lay it all on John or Jane Doe, it was about wanting to lay it all parents of the victims. It was about the creating the illusion of Echols and his accomplices being innocent and Mark Byers being guilty not just of murdering his son and two other young boys, but also suggesting he murdered his own wife. It's a sick and twisted game played by a sociopath whose preys on the innocence of others in any way he can. Marylin Manson's Kiddie Grinder (http://youtu.be/yURaxbSXSXw) goes a long way to explaining the psychology of it all.

gheckso
06-20-2013, 08:49 PM
I stand corrected, I'd just like to say that I'm convinced people would act very differently if they were to spend their remaining days (however many) incarcerated and waiting for death. I don't think being respectful was at the top of his concern list, in no way am I condoning his behavior but I don't think its shocking to hear something like this from someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned (jmo).

I have seen PL2 but do not remember every scene. Appreciate the info.

Have you got examples, or remember Jason making similar statements?

kyleb
06-20-2013, 09:29 PM
So do you imagine Echols simply wasn't intelligent enough to realize there never was any actual evidence to connect Byers to the murders? Or do you agree with me that he was depraved enough insist Byers committed the murders despite the lack of any actual evidence to support such notions, but just refuse to believe he was depraved enough to have committed the murders himself?

As for examples of Baldwin making similar statements, sure, here's another scene from PL2:

Paradise Lost-Revelations - YouTube

There's at least one more example of such from each of them in PL2. Does anyone else here recall those examples and more recent ones but me?

gheckso
06-20-2013, 09:45 PM
So do you imagine Echols simply wasn't intelligent enough to realize there never was any actual evidence to connect Byers to the murders?


Rather I believe they were young enough and scared enough to believe anyone could have done it, as noted by Jason and seen on the PL films, JMB was an odd character and they naively played on that is my guess.


Or do you agree with me that he was depraved enough insist Byers committed the murders despite the lack of any actual evidence to support such notions


Is this your opinion of everyone here who insists there is evidence that points elsewhere that you do not accept?

kyleb
06-20-2013, 10:15 PM
Do you not comprehend the difference between believing anyone could have done it and insisting parents of the victims did it? And do you not see anything stupid about people wrongly convicted for being unusual insisting a parent of the victims committed the murders on the basis of how unusual that parent is? As for your question, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe explained my perspective on that as well as I could ever hope to:

misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.

Of course there's bound to be some supporters who secretly don't doubt the three committed the murders yet support them anyway of not for that very reason, much like the fans of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson obviously know those two committed the crimes which they did. I don't assume such hybristophilia on anyone in this case though, here or otherwise, as misunderstandings and neglect do well enough to explain the actions of everyone but Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley. Though again, I've yet to see Misskelley take part in any of the accusations against parents of the victims, and figure that's because he's got far more of a conscious than Baldwin and Echols combined, which also explains his reported crying fits and many documented confessions.

reedus23
06-20-2013, 11:47 PM
Neither of you have watched PL2, particularly the part where Kathy Bakken swoons over Echols while asking him about Mark Byers?

Paradise Lost-Revelations - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mh3g1joFKk#t=4570s)

That certainly wasn't about wanting to lay it all on John or Jane Doe, it was about wanting to lay it all parents of the victims. It was about the creating the illusion of Echols and his accomplices being innocent and Mark Byers being guilty not just of murdering his son and two other young boys, but also suggesting he murdered his own wife. It's a sick and twisted game played by a sociopath whose preys on the innocence of others in any way he can. Marylin Manson's Kiddie Grinder (http://youtu.be/yURaxbSXSXw) goes a long way to explaining the psychology of it all.

I'm not talking about others' feelings, beliefs or motivations. I was talking about mine. Regarding the bolded, to me it's not as much about showing innocence as it is about the fact there wasn't sufficient evidence of guilt in my opinion. If that is my belief, then it only follows that I think the only right thing to do is further investigate the murders in the interest of justice for the 3 boys.

reedus23
06-20-2013, 11:53 PM
there never was any actual evidence to connect Byers to the murders?

Oh I think there was sufficient reason to look into Byers. I would suggest that there was reason to look at Damien. But from there, there has to be evidence that actually connects them to the crime and that's where it falls apart as to both of them.

Compassionate Reader
06-25-2013, 11:15 PM
I believe I've said this before, but, since this thread has strayed far afield, I'll say it again. JMB was thoroughly investigated and cleared wrt these murders. Todd Moore was cleared by his being out of town on May 5, 1993 (verified by his trucker's log). Terry Hobbs was never questioned until years after the false convictions. He simply wasn't home when the police came to question him, and they simply didn't follow up. Even Gitchell stated in his Pasdar deposition that the parents/step parents/family should be the first people investigated and cleared in a case of child murders. So, since TH was not investigated, what's wrong with demanding such an investigation at this time? If Damien, Jason and Jessie are guilty, an investigation of TH will be fruitless, right? Why such an aversion to clearing his name?

reedus23
06-25-2013, 11:59 PM
I believe I've said this before, but, since this thread has strayed far afield, I'll say it again. JMB was thoroughly investigated and cleared wrt these murders. Todd Moore was cleared by his being out of town on May 5, 1993 (verified by his trucker's log). Terry Hobbs was never questioned until years after the false convictions. He simply wasn't home when the police came to question him, and they simply didn't follow up. Even Gitchell stated in his Pasdar deposition that the parents/step parents/family should be the first people investigated and cleared in a case of child murders. So, since TH was not investigated, what's wrong with demanding such an investigation at this time? If Damien, Jason and Jessie are guilty, an investigation of TH will be fruitless, right? Why such an aversion to clearing his name?

I truly don't get it. I don't get the us vs. them mentality. What the heck does it hurt to look into it further? If everything points right back at the WM3, so be it. If it points to someone else, wouldn't you want that person(s) punished so that justice can be served for those 3 boys? Some people need to put their ego aside IMHO. It's not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about justice for 3 little boys. If, in the meantime, the evidence shows the WM3 deserve some justice as well, so be it. The adamant refusal to even look and bury the head in the sand would piss me off if I were a parent. Even if I believed the WM3 were guilty personally, I would want every avenue pursued. Failure to do so is failing those 3 kids.

gheckso
06-26-2013, 12:13 AM
I don't get it either, many supporters are labelled as such with respect to DJ&J whilst I'd opine they are more so with regards to Chris, Michael, Steve and justice.

kyleb
06-26-2013, 03:34 AM
I truly don't get it. I don't get the us vs. them mentality.
Perhaps you might consider asking Berlinger and Sinofsky, as there' the ones who started this madness by choosing to take Echols' side before they even got a chance to see the evidence presented at the trials.

What the heck does it hurt to look into it further?

It's a matter of who it's hurt, but I apparently such people are of no concern to you.

reedus23
06-26-2013, 05:02 PM
Perhaps you might consider asking Berlinger and Sinofsky, as there' the ones who started this madness by choosing to take Echols' side before they even got a chance to see the evidence presented at the trials.


It's a matter of who it's hurt, but I apparently such people are of no concern to you.

Why would I care what HBO has to say? I get you don't like their slant on the case, but it's HBO. What's that got to do with wanting justice for Michael, Stevie and Chris?

I don't even get your last point. Are you talking about the parents of the step children? I do sympathize for them, obviously. But if there's a chance that the killer of their boys has never been charged and there is a chance that a further investigation might uncover who that person is, don't you think they'd want that?

If you're talking about the fact that the investigation might involve or go through some of the (step) parents, yes, that's tough. But it should have been done with ALL of them from the get go. It's not fun, but if doing so, even at this late date, again uncovers who was responsible, then it is a tough price to pay to get justice for the 3 murdered boys.

Compassionate Reader
06-28-2013, 11:22 PM
One of the most baffling things about this case to me is the reticence on the part of some of the parents to look at the evidence again or to look at new information. I know if it were my child who had been killed, I would want to make very sure that the guilty party was punished. I wouldn't leave any rock unturned until I assured myself that the police had arrested the right perpetrators. When questions arose wrt to the guilt of those target by the police, I would be in the forefront in the fight to be sure all leads were followed and all suspects were questioned.

Although I understand that it is much easier to believe that the police "got it right" in the first place, I, personally, could never accept the State's version of the events of May 5, 1993 unless I was convinced beyond any doubt of the guilt of those convicted. I know that JMB and Pam Hobbs feel that way as does Ricky Murray, Christopher's biological father. Those who are satisfied that the killers were found shouldn't shy away from an opportunity to prove their convictions. Those who are unsatisfied with the convictions should be given the opportunity to find the real killer or killers. That is all.

reedus23
06-28-2013, 11:55 PM
One of the most baffling things about this case to me is the reticence on the part of some of the parents to look at the evidence again or to look at new information. I know if it were my child who had been killed, I would want to make very sure that the guilty party was punished. I wouldn't leave any rock unturned until I assured myself that the police had arrested the right perpetrators. When questions arose wrt to the guilt of those target by the police, I would be in the forefront in the fight to be sure all leads were followed and all suspects were questioned.

Although I understand that it is much easier to believe that the police "got it right" in the first place, I, personally, could never accept the State's version of the events of May 5, 1993 unless I was convinced beyond any doubt of the guilt of those convicted. I know that JMB and Pam Hobbs feel that way as does Ricky Murray, Christopher's biological father. Those who are satisfied that the killers were found shouldn't shy away from an opportunity to prove their convictions. Those who are unsatisfied with the convictions should be given the opportunity to find the real killer or killers. That is all.

That is what I have never gotten. If I were a parent, and there was any question mark, I would want that question answered, even if it were the same person(s). No way I would want to take a chance that my child's killer was never charged.

kyleb
06-29-2013, 02:47 AM
I, personally, could never accept the State's version of the events of May 5, 1993 unless I was convinced beyond any doubt of the guilt of those convicted.
Does your any include even most unreasonable of doubts?