It's a very simple question.

New Posts

D

Dirty larry

Former Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
110
Reaction score
2
It's a sworn tape recorded fact that Misskelley told the police, the Prosecution, and his own attorneys in private that he was present and participated in this crime.

Just show us one indication that he ever told any of them otherwise?

Sure he plead not guilty to murder, but then he never confessed to murder did he?

When in the last decade and a half has he EVER said he wasn't there?

Once again, if you ignore his constant confessions, it's because you don't WANT to believe them.
 
That's one thing that gets me....I can fully believe that someone could be coerced into a confession, but you would think at some point they would proclaim innocence. To my knowledge, he never has. He has recanted confessions before only to later reconfess.

If he is innocent, the only reason I can think that he never proclaimed innocence is he now believes he was there. Hear me out....Let's say he was drunk the night of the murders (he has said that), he doesn't remember what happened (blacked out), the police later planted the idea into his head that he was involved creating a false memory of the night...I know it's far fetched but possible.
 
^ if he did black out and the idea was 'planted' that still doesn't explain the broken whiskey bottle found where he said it was going to be, and of the brand he nominated which corroborates the confession.

He doesn't proclaim innocence, even here....

[video=youtube;XtLJyRUBUJg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtLJyRUBUJg&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
He has recanted confessions before only to later reconfess.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing, STIDHAM has claimed he recanted - I've never seen Misskelley recant.

Not once.

In fact, according to several sources including Mike Allen, Brent Davis, and District attorney Dustin McDaniel, Misskelley is maintaining his participation to his prison counsler to this day.
 
I feel very confident that JM was eventually convinced by his attorneys not to discuss the case with the press.

As for jailhouse gossip, I'm not fond of it whether it comes from inmates or LE.

But JM does seem to have learned that he can expect better treatment when he says what LE wants to hear.
 
Yes, although his IQ may be questionable, I find him more credible than Damien, who claims not to remember how old he was when he was arrested for a triple murder, an arrest that culminated in him being sentenced to death. Damien also claims that his written assertion that he was the next messiah, was probably a work of fiction as he is apparently a wonderful writer and not a deluded, mentally ill man.
 
I feel very confident that JM was eventually convinced by his attorneys not to discuss the case with the press.
Click to expand...
And why would they advise their client not to tell the media he was innocent?
But JM does seem to have learned that he can expect better treatment when he says what LE wants to hear.
Click to expand...
Really?

According to you, that's what landed him in prison?
 
False cofessions certainly exist, but in every documented case I can find, they have been later recanted. JM has never stated that he was not involved, even maintaining his own guilt after conviction. I don't understand how his low IQ is apparently the cause of his "coerced confession" and yet supporters refuse to believe that his low IQ could also be an explanation for the few discrepancies that are present in his multiple cofessions. For a mentally challenged man, he sure got most of the facts right.
 
For a mentally challenged man, he sure got most of the facts right.
Click to expand...
Especially when you consider that according to him he was "puke drunk" during the crime.
 
ITA, if he worked those confessions to fit with the facts as led by LE then he's an idiot savant, much too complex a story, and too many corroborating facts. Perhaps it was stupid of him to confess, I'm sure his co-convincted would have preferred he had kept his mouth shut, but since they were also blurting out confessions to their peers I doubt this one would have been kept quiet for long anyway.

He hasn't proclaimed innocence because he's not, and even though he was involved in this horrific murder, at least he had enough decency to admit it, and show some contrition.
 
He hasn't proclaimed innocence because he's not, and even though he was involved in this horrific murder, at least he had enough decency to admit it, and show some contrition.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If Stidham would have actually represented his client's best interest, Misskelley would probably be out of prison by now.
 
Dirty larry said:
Especially when you consider that according to him he was "puke drunk" during the crime.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Which kind of jars with the insistance by his lawyer and family, that he is functioning at the level of a five year old. The five year olds that I know do not get "puke drunk", nor do they have girlfriends and indulge in conversations full of sexual innuendo.
 
Speaking of his girlfriend:

On Thursday night on June 3, 1993 at approximately 8:30 or 9 p.m., I detective Charlie Dabbs, Detective Tony Anderson from the West Memphis Police Department and Sergeant Tankersley with the Crittenden County Sheriff's Office, after obtaining a Consent To Search form signed by Jessie Misskelley, escorted Jessie Misskelley and his wife to their residence.
We went in and secured the residence until the search and evidence team arrived. While sitting in their living room for approximately two hours, and during conversation Mr. and Mrs. Misskelley talked about different incidents. During the conversation, Mrs. Misskelley got to talking about how Jessie Jr. was waking her up at night crying and having nightmares. Every time she went into his room he would be crying hysterically and he would tell her it was because his girlfriend was moving away. She told us it happened a number of times, and that she could not believe his girlfriends' moving would cause that kind of hysterical behavior, but that little Jessie had been acting strange.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/dabbs_report.jpg
 
Jessie confessed because he couldn't carry the burden of what he'd done. It's as clear as day unless you're invested in believing the confessions were false. He regretted it, badly.
 
I can't understand why Jesse would not testify against Damien and Jason. By the time J and D's trial started Jesse's was over and it was a well known fact he implicated them in the crime so why not testify against them for a sweet deal? He was already known as a snitch so what would it hurt to testify against them? What did he have to lose? I know he gave an explanation saying he would not do it because it was wrong to lie. Did he commit the crime by himself and felt bad for implicating J and D so he decided not to testify against them because he would feel even worse if his testimony got them convicted for something they did not do?
 
I think he was scared of Damien;s wrath if he testified. After all, there was a possibility that Damien would be acquitted and Jessie would then be in fear of reprisals. The trial transcripts clearly show that there were many people in the area who were very frightened by Damien.
 
I can't understand why Jesse would not testify against Damien and Jason.
Click to expand...
On Feb 22nd, there was a hearing to determine if Misskelley would be allowed to testify.

Since there was a dispute between the attorneys, Burnett assigned an independant attorney to speak with Misskelley and make sure he understood his situation.

This attorney - Philip Wells - advised Misskelley not to testify without some kind of deal.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I have indicated to him that if he makes a decision that he is willing to testify, that before he makes that decision, he needs to have his criminal defense lawyer try to find out what type of negotiated plea they are willing to offer and only at that decision should Jessie Misskelley decide whether or not to give up his appellate rights and his opportunity not to testify in exchange for finding out what kind of negotiated plea that is.

By the time J and D's trial started Jesse's was over and it was a well known fact he implicated them in the crime so why not testify against them for a sweet deal?
Click to expand...
Because he couldn't get a sweet deal.

Once convicted, the Prosecution no longer had any ability to modify his sentence.

They did approach the Judge as they said, and he replied on record:

THE COURT: There's one other thing. There's been some talk about the Court's power to reduce the sentence, and we have talked about that indirectly. And for the record, I have never said I would do anthing one way or the other. In fact I tried to tell each of you that I wasn't going to make any commitment that I'd do anything, one way or the other, whether he testifies, doesn't testify or what.

I know he gave an explanation saying he would not do it because it was wrong to lie.
Click to expand...
I don't know of Misskelley himself ever giving any such explaination - tho it does seem to be have become supporter lore.
 
I go back and forth with this case, BUT here's what I don't get......... IF they are Innocent like everyone claims then why are they still in prison 17 years later and why does EVERY appeal get turned down?

and what is the likelyhood of Damien getting off Death Row?

and how many appeals does he have left?
 
Dirty Larry.. I have a simple question for you :
Assuming, with your vast knowledge of this case, that you have seen the post-mortem pics (as I have) of these children, how do you explain the wounds? Concrete scrapes, rebar patterns, predatation, skull fractures.. your theory, please. I am a fence sitter, largely due to wound patterns that make no sense to the scenario of a riverbank beating with "sticks and fists".
 
Dirty larry said:
And why would they advise their client not to tell the media he was innocent?

Really?

According to you, that's what landed him in prison?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is a question I can answer, after three decades working at law firms. (Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer and most of the cases I've worked on were civil, not criminal.)

But EVERY lawyer wants his clients to shut up and let the lawyer do the talking. The less educated and intelligent the client, the more this is true.

And this is because clients almost never have sufficient knowledge of the law to recognize the ramification of even the most seemingly innocuous statements.

Even when the client is an attorney himself, his lawyer wants him to shut up because the client lacks sufficient objectivity to field questions productively.

The exceptions usually seem to involve cases where the lawyer decides that the defendant can by talking make himself seem sympathetic. (This may be the case with Damien nowadays.)

But in most cases, if the defendant is talking, s/he's doing against the advice of counsel.

Given his track record, I know that if I were Jessie Misskelley's attorney, I wouldn't want him saying anything to anybody on any subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 151 more.
Total: 3,555 (members: 152, guests: 3,403)

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
3,403
Total visitors
3,555
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,205
Messages
17,964,965
Members
228,714
Latest member
galesr
Back
Top