Jessie...is this remotely possible?

Ok I'm rereading the court transcripts. It's taking a while-wife/mom/work-all that good stuff

After rereading Jessie's confessions-I'm just blown away at how inconsistent he was from one confession to the next and even within the same confession.

Is it even remotely possible that Jessie-coming from a poor family/not very bright-made all this up from the stories he heard and at times was fed by investigators (even the strongest arguments for their guilt have to admit he was CONSTANTLY being led in his confessions-he never once just told a story of what happened....he was questioned with the majority of questions being considered leading)?

What if after being questioned the first few hours for the first time....he enjoyed the attention and the more attention he got-the further into it he went.

Is this even worth considering?

oh just for the record.....I no longer consider myself for/against anymore.....I'm starting completely over.

I've put together a doc comparing Jessie's statements to each other..

....and part 2 ....



PDF....

that is great!

It's also interesting in the 4th confession regarding the boys being raped-he says what you have written then within a few minutes later-he recants it.

Also-I'd have to read to find it but his statements about what they were doing when they first saw/heard the little boys.........one confession he says he, damien, and jason were all in the water when the boys came up on their bikes. Another confession he says they were not in the water...they heard the boys and damien made noises to get them to come to them.

I know a lot of people look at 4 confessions and see guilt but when you really look at them and think about the person making these confessions it leaves me with a lot of doubt. I guess I would feel better about them if he'd been asked what happened and he told his side rather than being asked the questions in the manner he was asked.

^ sorry the bit about them meeting / being in the water is in the first file, I had mistakenly linked the same file twice....They are interesting to see side by side I have to say. I decided to leave opinion out of these because it's quite open to interpretation that way. Hope they're balanced.

Thank you Mrs. G Norris for doing that.. that's great. I hope you don't mind but I saved a copy for my records. If you do mind, I will delete it.

The most important thing for me in those first two confessions (I actually only count them as one, but technically I'm wrong.. lol) is this area:

RIDGE: okay, now when this is going on, when this is taking place, you saw somebody with a knife., who had a knife?
JESSIE: Jason
RIDGE: Jason had a knife, what did he cut with the knife. What did you see him cut or who did you see him cut?
JESSIE: I saw him cut one of the little boys
RIDGE: Alright, where did he cut him at?
JESSIE: He was cutting him in the face.
RIDGES: Cutting him in the face. Alright, another boy was cut I understand., where was he cut at?
JESSIE: At the bottom
RIDGE: On his bottom? Was he faced down and he was cutting on him, or
JESSIE: He was
GITCHELL: Now you're talking about bottom, do you mean right here?
JESSIE: Yes
GITCHELL: In his groin area?
JESSIE: Yes
GITCHELL: Okay
RIDGE: Do you know what his penis is?
JESSIE: Yeah, that's where he was cut at.
RIDGE: That's where he was cut.
GITCHELL: Which boy was that?
JESSIE: That one right there.
GITCHELL: You're talking about the Byers boy again?
JESSIE: Yes


They are two facts to me that Jessie should not have known had he not been there.

^ That's fine, save away! ....that's why I included the PDF : )

And I absolutely agree with you regarding the statement above (now we know that the people who are determined to believe that this is a false confession will say he was coached, that the police are part of a huge conspiracy etc, and nothing in the evidence files can be trusted) that that's exactly the kind of corroborating evidence the police would have been looking for in a confession. Also the whiskey bottle thrown down the overpass which was recovered later puts him right at the scene of the crime and corroborates his story, that's something that cannot be fabricated.. actually I should have given that tit-bit it's own row in retrospect.

I think its possible that story (being cut off) was already out there....I really do. JMB does not strike me as the type of person that would keep information to himself....he loved the attention in my opinion.

laurensmom said:

I think its possible that story (being cut off) was already out there....I really do. JMB does not strike me as the type of person that would keep information to himself....he loved the attention in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Over the years of researching and following this case, including looking through all the old newspaper and tv reports, the only thing that is mentioned before Jessie's confession is that the boys were mutilated. Of course if someone can show me a media report that states one boy was cut in the face, and that only Christopher was mutilated.. I will willing concede my error.

I just know I have been nearby when a couple of horrible things have taken place, (nothing like a crime of course) but I have been surprised at just how much my mind has blocked out. It's hard to explain it. It is kind of like you know what happened, but you can not recall all the little details. Maybe I am the only one that this happens to. But if Jesse said he was there and he was drinking, and he named the other 2 perpetrators, I can't think he made it up just because he can't keep all the little details straight.

well, admittedly I haven't researched this case much but after seeing Mrs. G. Norris' statement comparison graph (thank you Mrs. - fantastic work!), I really don't see much in the way of inconsistencies - the time of day is the big one that really concerned me & yet apparently he admitted to intentionally lying about that?

laurensmom said:

oh just for the record.....I no longer consider myself for/against anymore.....I'm starting completely over.

Click to expand...

I am neither for nor against them either.

I fall 100% in the camp that enough is wrong with the case that they at a minimum deserve a new trial. If they are guilty the evidence should show that in the bright light of a new trial with the world watching.

If they aren't guilty or the evidence has been so mangled by LE that it can't be proven than this whole thing is a travesty that will only be compounded further by executing someone who was not proven guilty in a reasonable manner.

Sunnyone said:

Over the years of researching and following this case, including looking through all the old newspaper and tv reports, the only thing that is mentioned before Jessie's confession is that the boys were mutilated. Of course if someone can show me a media report that states one boy was cut in the face, and that only Christopher was mutilated.. I will willing concede my error.

Click to expand...

Sometimes information does not get out in such a small community by way of a TV report or newspaper, especially for someone like Jessie I would imagine...a good morning read of the paper or the TV tuned to CNN is probably not his style.

I find it highly probable that this explanation is feasible:
http://www.freewebs.com/boohiss13/misskelleyconfessions.htm

"(In Gitchell’s testimony on the stand he states that Jessie knew about the castration of Christopher Byers and that was not public knowledge, when in fact, that was not true. If you will look at John Mark Byers statement of 5-19-93 he describes Todd Moore becoming confused that all boys were castrated and John finding out it was only his son; so there was dicussion between the families and possibly those who knew them. ALSO, the Commercial Appeal, local newspaper, picked up chatter about the murders on their police scanner, hearing about the castration, and printed it in the next day’s paper. This is not something only the police knew)"

I am from a small town population 2,000 and my next door neighbor was the fire chief. We knew everything that was happening in the County as we were the county seat, due to his scanner.

Can everyone say for certain that before this taped confession of Jessie's that he was never shown any photos to scare him into confessing? There is no videotape of the entire interrogation nor is their audio, so are we all completely confident that in prior questioning or local rumor that Jessie could not have known that a boy was cut both on "the bottom" and on "the face"?

Why if he knows what a penis is does he say on the bottom?

Can everyone say for certain that before this taped confession of Jessie's that he was never shown any photos to scare him into confessing?

Click to expand...

I can say that Misskelley has never even made the accusation.

I can also say the presumption of innocence applies to the police as well as the defendant, so there is certainly no reason to presume this happened unless one simply needs to believe it did.

So it's pretty much on you at this point.

You can either show us this happened, or you can't.

ziggy said:

Sometimes information does not get out in such a small community by way of a TV report or newspaper, especially for someone like Jessie I would imagine...a good morning read of the paper or the TV tuned to CNN is probably not his style.

I find it highly probable that this explanation is feasible:
http://www.freewebs.com/boohiss13/misskelleyconfessions.htm

"(In Gitchell’s testimony on the stand he states that Jessie knew about the castration of Christopher Byers and that was not public knowledge, when in fact, that was not true. If you will look at John Mark Byers statement of 5-19-93 he describes Todd Moore becoming confused that all boys were castrated and John finding out it was only his son; so there was dicussion between the families and possibly those who knew them. ALSO, the Commercial Appeal, local newspaper, picked up chatter about the murders on their police scanner, hearing about the castration, and printed it in the next day’s paper. This is not something only the police knew)"

I am from a small town population 2,000 and my next door neighbor was the fire chief. We knew everything that was happening in the County as we were the county seat, due to his scanner.

Can everyone say for certain that before this taped confession of Jessie's that he was never shown any photos to scare him into confessing? There is no videotape of the entire interrogation nor is their audio, so are we all completely confident that in prior questioning or local rumor that Jessie could not have known that a boy was cut both on "the bottom" and on "the face"?

Why if he knows what a penis is does he say on the bottom?

Click to expand...

The bolder portion of your own post says it all. Jessie probably didn't read the newspaper accounts, nor watch the coverage, so how did he know?
Especially since by all accounts Jessie was not on speaking terms with any of the parents, how would John Mark Byers knowing it was just his son help Jessie to know this? Especially if you read in that statement JMB asks the detectives if anyone else will hear this taped statement, the reply was only us detectives. As for the Commericial Appeal article, I've read the one in question and it does not state which boy was castrated. It certainly doesn't state that one was cut on the face.

Here are the pictures that were shown to Jessie:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/jm_victims_photos.jpg

So those pictures would not tell Jessie which one was castrated and that one was cut in the face.

There is no tape of the "entire interrogation" because he wasn't being interrogated, he was a witness. Hence why it wasn't recorded until he implicated himself. If you read his confession he even gets the names mixed up, but not the injuries to which boy. If he was being led, or knew before he would have gotten the names correct. As for knowing what a penis is and stating bottom, it's called respect.

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of those who support these child murderers is how "faith based" their beliefs are.

The only statements they can cite to indicate Misskelley was coerced into a false confession are from people who weren't even there during the interrogation, people who were paid to say he was coerced into a false confession, and people who's credibility was shredded time and time again.

From Dan Stidhams Law Firm

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 s***! 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."

It took Kim's breath away. She sank into a chair. "Explain this to me," she said.

If this account is correct then Jessie changed his stance with his own lawyers during the conversation about what kind of plea he was going to be able to get....as in Life + ?, LWOP or DP. Jessie says "I wasn't there! Them cops made me say that s***! You gotta get me out of here!" as the reality of his situation dawns. Until then it's clear he had been feeding his lawyer a different story. When faced with a confession from a client one option is to attempt to have the confession thrown out and be inadmissible come trial, would have made the case more difficult for the prosecution which is the defense attorneys role, alongside of protecting the rights of his client. Actually come to think of it, it's more than an option, it's SOP unless the client is willing to enter into plea negotiations, which it appears from Jessie's reaction above, he was not.

If this account is correct

Click to expand...

If that account is correct, then where did THIS come from?

The Misskelley trial was scheduled for the first of the year, 1994. On a cold December day, Dan met Ofshe face to face in Paragould. He looked like a professor--bushy gray hair, bushy gray beard. But his voice was soft and soothing. They drove together through the delta to the jail where Misskelley was housed. Dan introduced them and left them alone.

Nervously, he waited. And waited. And waited some more. After four hours, Ofshe emerged from the interview. They got in the car for the drive back to Paragould. Dan held himself in as long as he could, but a couple of blocks from the jail he blurted it out: "Well?"

Ofshe smiled at him. "He's innocent," he said.

Dan "12 hour" Stidham needs to decide not only when his client "recanted",... but when he chose to believe him.

Jessie says "I wasn't there! Them cops made me say that s***! You gotta get me out of here!" as the reality of his situation dawns.

Click to expand...

No, STIDHAM says jessie said that.

In Misskelley's rule 37, Stidham completely contridicts this nonsense.

Funny how the threat of perjury "sharpens" the memory.