On False Confessions

I don't know if this great site on false confessions and coerced testimony has been linked here. Thanks to poster Malkmus for posting it in the Amanda Knox thread.


http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Loftus_Elizabeth.shtml

Very interesting, indeed, Nova. I wonder if Ms. Loftus has heard about Jessie's confession and what she'd say about it, too.

Compassionate Reader said:

Very interesting, indeed, Nova. I wonder if Ms. Loftus has heard about Jessie's confession and what she'd say about it, too.

Click to expand...

At first I was a little surprised it wasn't mentioned. But then I realized that of course the professor isn't going to comment on a case unless she has done formal work on it.

Here's another video about false confessions:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRRwFfJKkw&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

It is a bit over nine minutes long, but it's worth the time. I originally saw it over on one of the yuku discussion boards about the case, and it is very informative.

There is a great movie (documentary) that includes some professionals speaking on false confessions. It is titled "Mr. Big."

http://www.mrbigthemovie.com/

I was actually interviewed for the movie (but not about false confessions) because I blogged the trial of the movie maker's brother (Sebastian Burns). It's a great movie (even if I do say so myself!).

There was NOTHING False about Jessie's Second Confession.

The reason why he told so many confessions is because the guilt was eating him up and he could not stand it anymore.

I really think the lesson here is: DON'T BRAG ABOUT A MURDER IF YOU ARE INNOCENT.

Jessie's statements were not simply false confessions; they were coerced by the interrogators who IMO unethically preyed upon his mental disability to get what they needed to convict an innocent man, Damien Echols. They had no idea that Jessie would implicate himself, or anyone else for that matter. If you recall, Jessie's original statement was that the crimes were committed by Damien and Robert Burch. He had to be led (coerced) into naming Jason. Of course, no one from the WMPD will ever admit this because careers have been made on this case, and "good old boys" stick together.

In the case of the infamous "second confession," the prosecution had been working on Jessie for quite a while, against the express instructions of his attorneys, to try to get him to testify at the Echols/Baldwin trial. Again, this is something that will never be openly admitted, but the simple fact that the defense team had to be called in to witness the statement, and it was not made at the prison, lends circumstantial evidence to the idea I've put forth. As everyone knows, he did not testify. If he was so racked with guilt, why would he not relieve the pressure by testifying at the E/B trial? Because, after his daddy told him to tell the truth, he was not of any use to the prosecution as he would not have implicated Damien or Jason.

Bottom line, none of Jessie's statements are totally consistent with the evidence, especially as now understood. As time passed, his statements became more accurate. His most accurate statement (and even this one was not totally accurate, even regarding the evidence as then understood) was the "second confession" which occurred after he had sat through his own trial and heard the prosecution's case presented in detail.

Even someone with Jessie's mental disability would be able to regurgitate much of the information from the trial, especially after he was coached by the prosecution, which IMO happened. They even convinced him that his own attorneys were not on his side. Just read the interaction between Jessie and his attorneys immediately preceding the statement and you'll see what I mean.

Jessie's disability makes him easily manipulated. If he testifies at the hearing in December and the State is able to make him change his story, the redirect will make him change it right back. Then, Judge Laser will be able to see for himself just how easy it is to manipulate Jessie. Then, Judge Laser will do what should have been done in 1994 and throw out his statements, all of them, and the State's case with them.

iluvmua said:

There was NOTHING False about Jessie's Second Confession.

The reason why he told so many confessions is because the guilt was eating him up and he could not stand it anymore.

I really think the lesson here is: DON'T BRAG ABOUT A MURDER IF YOU ARE INNOCENT.

Click to expand...

I'm confussed about your two conflicting statements. The first is that his confession was true, the second is that he's innocent. Which is it?

Donnabert said:

I'm confussed about your two conflicting statements. The first is that his confession was true, the second is that he's innocent. Which is it?

Click to expand...

She is convinced of his guilt. The second statement is facetious.

Compassionate Reader said:

Very interesting, indeed, Nova. I wonder if Ms. Loftus has heard about Jessie's confession and what she'd say about it, too.

Click to expand...

Yeah, she did a bang-up job in the Tim Hennis case.

Ahahahaaaaa!

No takers?

Well, allow me...

Tim Hennis raped and butchered a young mother in 1985. He also butchered her two little girls. Slit their throats.

He was convicted and then given a new trial based on a technicality.

In the second trial, Elizabeth Loftus testified that the eyewitness, Patrick Cone, who saw Hennis leaving Katie Eastburn's house on the night of the murders was "mistaken", and suffering from "false memories".

Tim Hennis was acquitted, thanks largely to the 'expert' on false memories. He had a great life for the next 25 years, while his three victims moldered in their graves.

Last year they finally got him on DNA evidence, which wasn't available in 1985.

Lizzie Loftus. What a gem :floorlaugh:

iluvmua said:

There was NOTHING False about Jessie's Second Confession.

The reason why he told so many confessions is because the guilt was eating him up and he could not stand it anymore.

I really think the lesson here is: DON'T BRAG ABOUT A MURDER IF YOU ARE INNOCENT.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, Jessie was not mentally capable of handling a confession without the liberty of a lawyer. He just wanted to go home and admitted as such. Just tell them what they want to hear and I can leave.

I have a serious problem in believing a confession of a person with an IQ of 72, and who was interrogated for 12 hours. Of those 12 hours only 46 minutes were taped.

IMHO Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jesse Misskelley Jr. were accused of and charged with the murders of three little boys without forensic evidence, without anything besides a confession from Jesse Miskelley Jr.

There are many discrepancies in this case including much of Jesse’s confession. Wounds on the children thought to be bite marks did not match molds of the three’s teeth so they were assumed to be made with a serrated knife, now have been decided to be caused by animals.

I'm sorry I can't stand by and let all this stuff go unnoticed. In 2012 they would have been acquitted (IMHO).

MOO

Mel

Let me correct one false perception stated in the previous post (before the nons jump in here and start screaming that you are lying). Jessie was not interrogated for 12 hours. He was in custody prior to his arrest for about 12 hours, but the actual interrogation did not last the entire time. There was some down time in between the original statement, the "corrected" statement and the polygraph exam. Bottom line, only 40-some minutes of the interrogation were actually recorded, and, even by the most conservative of estimates, the actual interrogation took at least twice that time.

CR-How old was Jessie at the time of his interrogation?

I'll double check, but I believe at the time of the arrests, Jessie was 17, Jason was 15 and Damien was 18.

Sorry bout the 12 hours. Let's just agree it was a long time.

1.Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie's identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
2.That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
3.That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
4.That many areas of Jessie's confession were not supported by the facts.

Examples of incorrect information in Jason's "confession:"

1.Jessie stated that the victims and Jason Baldwin were not at school when in fact they were proven to have been in attendance
2.Jessie stated that the victims were bound with rope when in fact they were bound with their own shoelaces
3.Jessie stated that one boy was choked with a stick when the medical examiners report stated that there was no evidence of strangulation
4.Jessie stated that the boys were anally raped when in fact the medical examiner had found no evidence of this occurring
5.Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/confess_6.html

Mel,

I hope I didn't upset you. I didn't mean to. It's just that that particular statement is one of the nons favorite whipping boys. You know, "Supporters are so dumb that they say he was interrogated for 12 hours when it was really only 3 or 4." So, whenever I see someone making that mistake, I try to point it out, politely. If I failed in the politeness element, I apologize. It's very late (2:30 am) here, and I need to get to bed!

It's still a very valid point that, however long it was, it wasn't all recorded, so we simply don't know what they said to Jessie during the unrecorded period. However, comparing his first statement to his "corrected" statement (both made on 6/3/1993), it's easy to see, like you said, where he has been "coached" into what they wanted to hear. That's what is important, not the length of the time during which he was interrogated.

I'm just bothered that he was interrogated for so long while being a minor....Unless 17 is legal age? I know in MD it's not.

missy_g said:

I'm just bothered that he was interrogated for so long while being a minor....Unless 17 is legal age? I know in MD it's not.

Click to expand...

Right - at 17 he should have been accompanied by a parent or attorney. I'll have to go back and check, but I don't believe he had either. This should make his confession moot.

MOO

Mel

Compassionate Reader said:

Mel,

I hope I didn't upset you. I didn't mean to. It's just that that particular statement is one of the nons favorite whipping boys. You know, "Supporters are so dumb that they say he was interrogated for 12 hours when it was really only 3 or 4." So, whenever I see someone making that mistake, I try to point it out, politely. If I failed in the politeness element, I apologize. It's very late (2:30 am) here, and I need to get to bed!

It's still a very valid point that, however long it was, it wasn't all recorded, so we simply don't know what they said to Jessie during the unrecorded period. However, comparing his first statement to his "corrected" statement (both made on 6/3/1993), it's easy to see, like you said, where he has been "coached" into what they wanted to hear. That's what is important, not the length of the time during which he was interrogated.

Click to expand...

OMG - no worries! There are so many websites out there that I really don't know what's real and what's not -- which makes the case even more confusing. Even the depos are hard to follow - egads!

Hugs,

Mel