Misskelley's I.Q.

OK, Let's talk about his IQ.

In fact, Let's look at the testimony of his own witness, Dr. William Wilkins:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?
WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

His Performance IQ was 75 in the test he took for the trial.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?
WILKINS: 88.

So his performance IQ plunged 13 points from the previous year.

In fact, prior to the test given to him for his trial it was consistently average...

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?
WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.
DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?
WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.
DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.
WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.
DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?
WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

So his previous performance scores were average - he's charged with murder, and in a test given by his witness, his score suddenly drops 13 points.

You suppose maybe he was faking?

Let's see what his witness had to say about that...

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.
WILKINS: Yes.
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.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?
WILKINS: Yes.

So his own witness got caught on the stand "mispronouncing" Misskelley's malingering index - when the actual score strongly indicated he was faking to aid in his defense.

These aren't opinions, they are the documented results of his testing.

Of course this wasn't the first time Wilkins got caught "mispronouncing" MMPI results...

A psychologist who evaluated Jessie Misskelley Jr. as borderline mentally retarded and very suggestible went before the state Board of Psychological Examiners last month and had his practice limited.
Dr. William Wilkins of Jonesboro must practice under the direction of a supervisor and cannot handle sexual abuse or neuro-psychology cases, he said under rigorous questioning from prosecutors this morning in the capital murder trial of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.

Why was his licenses restricted?

An evaluation of Wilkins done by another psychologist reported concerns about Wilkins' lack of knowledge of fundamental psychological defects and the scales used in scoring the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality test (MMPI) and Wexler tests, common psychological and intelligence evaluation tools. Wilkins used both those tests, along with the Rorshchach test, in evaluating Misskelley.


http://callahan.8k.com/cg...ingtimes/ET020294_01.jpg

The fact is, Misskelley wasn't retarded - even when he TRIED to be.

Just to add, I realize it's a long read, but if you want further insights into Dr. William Wilkins, the bench conference on him is some pretty scary stuff.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/jm_wilkins_hearing.html

I was just reading an article on WM3.org (there is a link to an article from ABC news) and it's amazing the amount of facts they leave out. They discussed Misskelleys IQ. They state he has an IQ of 72, they do not mention that more then one test was taken. I think it's bad reporting, they should at least state he has an IQ documented somewhere between 72 and 85. I can see how people have become supporters of the three when they are basing their opinion solely on news articles. I was one of those people. While I am still on the fence, I went from being a supporter to being on the fence after reading many of the actual facts of this case. I have a feeling many of the supporters would change their minds if they simply took the time to read the facts.

Rant done, that just really irritated me!

I went from being a supporter to being on the fence after reading many of the actual facts of this case.

Click to expand...

And you've only scratched the surface.

When the level of deception in the media about this case finally sinks in fully, then you will be ranting!

nephers said:

I was just reading an article on WM3.org (there is a link to an article from ABC news) and it's amazing the amount of facts they leave out. They discussed Misskelleys IQ. They state he has an IQ of 72, they do not mention that more then one test was taken. I think it's bad reporting, they should at least state he has an IQ documented somewhere between 72 and 85. I can see how people have become supporters of the three when they are basing their opinion solely on news articles. I was one of those people. While I am still on the fence, I went from being a supporter to being on the fence after reading many of the actual facts of this case. I have a feeling many of the supporters would change their minds if they simply took the time to read the facts.

Rant done, that just really irritated me!

Click to expand...

72. 85. Neither score makes him a criminal or legal mastermind. And suspects with much higher i.q.'s have falsely confessed under the pressure of police interrogation.

72. 85. Neither score makes him a criminal or legal mastermind.

Click to expand...

Neither make him handicapped either.

And suspects with much higher i.q.'s have falsely confessed under the pressure of police interrogation.

Click to expand...

Except Misskelley maintained his participation in this crime for months after his arrest - even giving his own attorneys a taped confession in private.

So much for his statements being the result of police pressure.

Dirty larry said:

Neither make him handicapped either.

Except Misskelley maintained his participation in this crime for months after his arrest - even giving his own attorneys a taped confession in private.

So much for his statements being the result of police pressure.

Click to expand...

But it is believed that there was pressure in that last taped confession. Jessie had been brought to the prosecutor's office and talked to him without counsel and Jessie had somehow been turned against his own attorneys who STRONGLY ADVISED him to not say anything that day - both attorneys were there but only during the taping of the session. Jesse had been promised that his girlfriend would be brought to visit him and the fact is that throughout history the police have done underhanded things like this and it is a theory and a fairly credible one to me, that he was very afraid in prison because it's so much different than jail, and that he was somehow convinced that his attorneys no longer had his best interests at heart and that only the prosecutor could help him and he was afraid for his life.

I count that last confession as pure trickery - hey listen folks...I'm going to law school and I'm usually for the prosecution and would like to be a prosecutor so my stance in this case goes beyond my usual patterns and it's because of the cases I've read and the way life really is in the legal system.

Jessie's confessions, and I read them several times, were so...I don't even know the word, but I was just floored at how inconsistent they were, how much leading was done by the cops to get him say things more in line with the evidence and the GROSS lack of intelligence and inability to articulate and that goes for all of them, cops included. My jaw was on the floor.

I give Jessie's confessions no weight or credibility.

And, there's no getting past the fact that people with a higher IQ than Jessie along with a higher level of education have falsely confessed.

I like this article. I remember the Stephanie Crowe case and the brother Michael and his two friends falsely confessing to her murder. Shameful. Here, only one, kind of a dunce, confessed.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/false_confessions.html

But it is believed that there was pressure in that last taped confession.

Click to expand...

Perhaps believed by those who aren't familiar with what actually took place.

talked to him without counsel and Jessie had somehow been turned against his own attorneys

Click to expand...

Could you show us when this took place?

Because Misskelley had already given his own attorneys a taped confession days before this meeting ever happened - days before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him.

who STRONGLY ADVISED him to not say anything that day

Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose threatening to have your client dragged away in handcuffs to prevent him from giving a statement could be considered "strongly advised".

Rather drastic measures, don't you think?

It's almost as though there is no merit to the argument that Jessie is of lower intelligence and fits the profile of someone who could be easily influenced or led.

Jessie had been brought to the prosecutor's office

Click to expand...

You are more than a little confused.

Misskelley was taken to Joe Calvin's office, who was not a party to this case.

And he was taken there at his attorney's request.

I can show you if you like?

Jesse had been promised that his girlfriend would be brought to visit him

Click to expand...

Can you show us where Misskelley ever made this claim?

I'll give you a hint - it's in none of his statements, and he denied it under oath.

it is a theory and a fairly credible one to me, that he was very afraid in prison because it's so much different than jail, and that he was somehow convinced that his attorneys no longer had his best interests at heart and that only the prosecutor could help him and he was afraid for his life.

Click to expand...

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that Misskelley gave his own attorneys a taped statement before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him.

I count that last confession as pure trickery

Click to expand...

I suspect that's because you really don't know much about it.

Here, This might clear some things up for you:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html

The reality here isn't all that complicated.

Stidham knew his client was guilty because his client consistently told him so, yet he convinced Misskelley he could beat the case with Ofshe.

When he failed, he did everything in his power to prevent the public from learning this.

I think Stidham's partner Crow summed it up best:

At one point Mr. Stidham did call your Honor, and I think at the point where he asked that -- told the Court that Jessie Misskelley needed a psychiatric evaluation, Mr. Crow, who was sitting next to me at that time, made the comment that someone in the room needed a psychiatric evaluation but he wasn't sure that it was Jessie Misskelley

I can't find the link to anything factual that says Jessie gave a taped confession to his own attorneys days before the prosecutors spoke with him. Can you help me out there?

And thank you for that callahan link; I read that yesterday and it specifically states here and I am quoting the transcript:

Mr. Sidham: "Yesterday, Mr. Misskelley contacted Mr. Crow at our office and informed Mr. Crow that he had talked to the prosecutors Sunday. Without our knowledge and consent, the meeting took place. They spoke to Mr. Misskelley without even bothering to inform us that that is what they were doing.

Mr. Crow learned yesterday from Mr. Davis that they had also talked to him on Saturday and also on Friday, and we informed the prosecutor again in no uncertain terms on Friday, February the 18th, that they were not to have any contact whatsoever with our client.

They have refused to obey this request, and they have proceeded to violate both Mr. Misskelley's Fifth Amendment rights and his Sixth Amendment rights."

THEY DID take him to speak with prosecutors without counsel present and against the advice of his counsel. That's misconduct. The use immunity is a farce because Jessie never said he was going to testify in the other trial. And what were the police saying to Jessie in the car on the way there? Who knows but it's classic police tactics to get around Miranda and Massiah.

I don't need to show when and how LE and the prosecution turned Jessie against his attorneys to conclude that something did happen for him to completely go against their advice. It makes no sense...why? Because he needed to do the right thing? Then that goes counter to not testifying agains Damien and Jason...if he were so compelled to do the right thing he would have followed through with that. They intentionally left his comment vague..."because something's gotta be done" or something like that I paraphrased.

It's easy to see that his motivation was not to come clean. I feel comfortable knowing how things are done in them there parts in inferring that he did it out of fear and to get something that was promised whether it be a visit from the girlfriend, protection or Taco Bell, but it doesn't jive any other way.

Regarding the girlfriend promise...Dirty L: Can you show us where Misskelley ever made this claim?

Sure from the link you provided:
Stidham: "While again in my brief I pointed out and in the motion itself that it is not unusual for a prisoner to be transferred, under Arkansas law the prosecution can't even call Mr. Misskelley once they've been notified that he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. They had no right whatsoever to pick him up at the Department of Corrections and transport him anyplace, much less the prosecuting attorney's office

[001291]


in Rector, Arkansas. I'm deeply disturbed by the conversation that took place between the Craighead County Sheriff's deputy, who I only know as Dickie. I don't know his last name. I think it may be Howell.

Mr. Misskelley has informed Mr. Crow and I of the conversation that took place. Basically they strongarmed him into believing it was in his best interests to testify. They even promised to bring his girlfriend to see him at the jail, Judge, and I think that is the most abhorent, ridiculous, flagrant violation of my client's rights that I have ever seen.



Your ending quote: "At one point Mr. Stidham did call your Honor, and I think at the point where he asked that -- told the Court that Jessie Misskelley needed a psychiatric evaluation, Mr. Crow, who was sitting next to me at that time, made the comment that someone in the room needed a psychiatric evaluation but he wasn't sure that it was Jessie Misskelley."
You make it sound like Crow was talking about Stidham but he could have been talking about any other blowhard in the room no? Whose quote is this?


And now some light reading for those of you who cannnot possibly belive in false confessions so much so that you think Jessie's is legit... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?_r=2&no_interstitial

I can't find the link to anything factual that says Jessie gave a taped confession to his own attorneys days before the prosecutors spoke with him. Can you help me out there?

Click to expand...

Again?

THEY DID take him to speak with prosecutors without counsel present and against the advice of his counsel.

Click to expand...

No, they didn't.

I suggest you read Crow's statement.

That's misconduct.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

It isn't even close.

The use immunity is a farce because Jessie never said he was going to testify in the other trial.

Click to expand...

Yes, he did.

But you are correct, the use immunity is a farce because unless Misskelley was Mirandized, he didn't need it.

And what were the police saying to Jessie in the car on the way there?

Click to expand...

Have you not read their statement?

I can show you if you like?

I don't need to show when and how LE and the prosecution turned Jessie against his attorneys to conclude that something did happen for him to completely go against their advice.

Click to expand...

Like a murder conviction?

It makes no sense...why? Because he needed to do the right thing?

Click to expand...

That's what he said.

If you have some evidence to contridict his sworn statement, you are certainly welcome to present it.

Then that goes counter to not testifying agains Damien and Jason...if he were so compelled to do the right thing he would have followed through with that.

Click to expand...

Because Philip Wells advised him not to until his attorney found out what kind of deal he could get.

You did read the transcript, yes?

They intentionally left his comment vague..."because something's gotta be done" or something like that I paraphrased.

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA!!

THEY left his statement vague.

Yet, when they don't, then they are leading him, right?

Regarding the girlfriend promise

Click to expand...

Yes?

Any luck finding where Misskelley ever made such an acusation?

Sure from the link you provided:
Stidham:

Click to expand...

So no.... you found no such accusation from Misskelley - just more of Stidham's ever changing nonsense.

Glad we could clear that up for you.

You make it sound like Crow was talking about Stidham but he could have been talking about any other blowhard in the room no?

Click to expand...

Seems like he would have said so, no?

And now some light reading for those of you who cannnot possibly belive in false confessions

Click to expand...

So in other words, you can't provide any evidence what so ever that Misskelley was coerced into a false confession - not even an accusation from Misskelley - so you just go on insisting that since they do happen, we should assume that's what happened here.

I trust you can see why that rational doesn't really fly.

ziggy said:

But it is believed that there was pressure in that last taped confession. Jessie had been brought to the prosecutor's office and talked to him without counsel and Jessie had somehow been turned against his own attorneys who STRONGLY ADVISED him to not say anything that day - both attorneys were there but only during the taping of the session. Jesse had been promised that his girlfriend would be brought to visit him and the fact is that throughout history the police have done underhanded things like this and it is a theory and a fairly credible one to me, that he was very afraid in prison because it's so much different than jail, and that he was somehow convinced that his attorneys no longer had his best interests at heart and that only the prosecutor could help him and he was afraid for his life.

I count that last confession as pure trickery - hey listen folks...I'm going to law school and I'm usually for the prosecution and would like to be a prosecutor so my stance in this case goes beyond my usual patterns and it's because of the cases I've read and the way life really is in the legal system.

Jessie's confessions, and I read them several times, were so...I don't even know the word, but I was just floored at how inconsistent they were, how much leading was done by the cops to get him say things more in line with the evidence and the GROSS lack of intelligence and inability to articulate and that goes for all of them, cops included. My jaw was on the floor.

I give Jessie's confessions no weight or credibility.

Click to expand...

Nor so I. I think JM figured quite rightly that he was treated better when he said what LE wanted him to say. Yes, he's that smart at least, but even puppies learn to poop in the proper places if they are rewarded consistently.

Something that makes me go "Hmmm...."

Given how much of his own time and his own money Stidham has devoted to trying to free JM over the years, I find it very odd to claim Stidham "knows" JM is guilty of torturing and killing a child, or even abetting others in doing so.

It's one thing to believe that Stidham is wrong about JM and therefore a fool.

Quite another to believe Stidham is so fond of child-killers he is willing to make a lifelong hobby out of freeing one.

Dirty larry said:

...So in other words, you can't provide any evidence what so ever that Misskelley was coerced into a false confession - not even an accusation from Misskelley - so you just go on insisting that since they do happen, we should assume that's what happened here....

Click to expand...

Perhaps we're using different meanings of the word "coerced." "Coercion" in the context of interrogation doesn't necessarily mean beating with a rubber hose; it merely means the suspect was inspired to say untrue, but damaging things by the pressure of the process.

That JM's confession required so much coaching is, in my mind, ipso facto evidence of coercion. (Or, if you prefer, evidence that JM is so mentally impaired that nothing he says can be believed.)

Given how much of his own time and his own money Stidham has devoted to trying to free JM over the years,

Click to expand...

Really?

Let's see,.... Stidham and Crow got more than any of the other Defense attornies in this case.

Misskelley's very first appeal was filed pro-se.

And Stidham had to be ordered to appear at Misskelley's rule37 hearing when he wanted to only provide a video taped statement.

Suppose you show us how much time and money Stidham has "devoted" to Misskelley?

"Coercion" in the context of interrogation doesn't necessarily mean beating with a rubber hose; it merely means the suspect was inspired to say untrue, but damaging things by the pressure of the process.

Click to expand...

You are confused again.

Coercion in the context of an interrogation has nothing to do with whether the damaging things were untrue.

Had you ever read Ofshe's pre-trial hearings, you would see that this was the predominant argument - that Ofshe would be allowed to offer his opinion Misskelley was coerced - but not that coercion indicated the statements were false.

That JM's confession required so much coaching

Click to expand...

You are also invited to show us which questions were "coaching" vs. simply reiterating what Misskelley had already told them.

In fact, since it's your claim, it's pretty much your burden to support it.

Dirty larry said:

You are confused again.

Coercion in the context of an interrogation has nothing to do with whether the damaging things were untrue.

Had you ever read Ofshe's pre-trial hearings, you would see that this was the predominant argument - that Ofshe would be allowed to offer his opinion Misskelley was coerced - but not that coercion indicated the statements were false.


You are also invited to show us which questions were "coaching" vs. simply reiterating what Misskelley had already told them.

In fact, since it's your claim, it's pretty much your burden to support it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it probably would be my burden if we were both playing by the same rules.

But since your rules about supporting claims only apply to others, I don't feel all that compelled to comply. If I get around to it...

Yeah, it probably would be my burden if we were both playing by the same rules.

Click to expand...

I agree.

One of us consistently provides documentation to support our claims,... and it isn't you.

I don't feel all that compelled to comply.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

The "supporter argument" is based entirely on supposition.

Dirty larry said:

I agree.

One of us consistently provides documentation to support our claims,... and it isn't you.

Exactly my point.

The "supporter argument" is based entirely on supposition.

Click to expand...

I can't even get you to read and respond to the documentation I do present. I'm not about to jump through hoops every time you decide to demand additional documentation.

All the supporting documentation you are asking for has been presented many times in the past. If I get some free time, maybe I'll look it up again. But I don't feel compelled to do so again.

As for YOUR documentation, when I've asked for it, I've gotten nothing.

At best, we'd have to call this one a draw.

I can't even get you to read and respond to the documentation I do present.

Click to expand...

Yet you continue to the thread where I showed you that your own source on conviction rates contridicted your claim, and supported the fact that convictions are not easy to come by.

As for YOUR documentation, when I've asked for it, I've gotten nothing.

Click to expand...

That's odd.

Every thread I've started here is chocked full of actual testimony.

At best, we'd have to call this one a draw.

Click to expand...

Not even close.

In fact, I have even supported my claims using YOUR source.