811 users online (119 members and 692 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,915

    Jessie Misskelly Second Confession


  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,915
    and this: http://www.findadeath.com/forum/show...t=3326&page=10

    Joseph puts a lot of things in prospective.

    off my soapbox until October.
    Last edited by iluvmua; 02-22-2011 at 07:12 PM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by iluvmua View Post
    Yes, enjoy Jessie's own words that, for the most part, the important part, the crime itself, do not agree with the evidence.

    DAVIS: Ok. Now when you grabbed one and Jason grabbed one what happened next?

    MISSKELLEY: We started hitting'm.

    DAVIS: With what ?

    MISSKELLEY: Fist at first.

    There are very few injuries on any of the victims that could be caused by fists. Also, I've seen a picture of Damien a day or so after the crimes, when he was first questioned, and his hands do not have any scrapes or scratches on them to indicate that he had been hitting anyone.


    Later,

    DAVIS: Ok. Were they, at some point did they get hit with anything besides your fist?

    MISSKELLEY: Stick.

    DAVIS: Who hit'm with a stick?

    MISSKELLEY: Damien, I hit, I hit one of'm with a stick

    There was no bark found embedded in the flesh of any of the victims as would have been the case if they had been hit with a stick as Jessie describes.

    Now, look carefully at this exchange:

    DAVIS: Ok. Now what did Jas, what did you see Jason and Damen do to the other two (2)?

    MISSKELLEY: Well Damien screw one of'm.

    DAVIS: When your saying he going screw him, what did you see him do?

    Davis knows that there is no evidence of sexual penetration, so, when Jessie says that Damien "screw one of'm," he quickly changes it to "going to screw him."

    I could go on through the testimony and point out how often it appears that Jessie had been coached by someone prior to making this statement, and was still having to be corrected throughout the statement, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence. Read through the statement and see for yourself. It's true that this statement contains more information that agrees with the police theory at the time than his other statements did. However, it is still full of inaccuracies that just wouldn't be there if Jessie had actually been at the scene of those murders.

    Don't miss the testimony about the knife. Jessie describes a "lock-blade" knife, not the serrated knife of the famous grapefruit experiment. Also, there is a statement by someone - I think his name is Sam Dwyer (I'll find out and edit if I'm wrong) - that says that Jason's mother threw a serrated blade knife into the lake before the murders because she didn't want Jason to have such a knife.

    Remember, in the trial, the prosecution carefully demonstrated how the wounds were caused by a serrated knife? That's just not true. In the upcoming evidentiary hearing, evidence from forensic pathologists, one of whom literally wrote the book on forensic pathology (unlike the State's Peretti who couldn't even pass his certification test, in three tries), will be introduced to indicate that those alleged knife wounds were actual post mortem animal predation wounds.

    This final statement of Jessie's is, in short, still full of inaccuracies. Also of interest is the beginning exchange where it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that, by his belligerent responses, Jessie has come to distrust his attorneys, especially Stidham. Does any one have a reasonable explanation as to how or why that happened?

    IMO, the prosecution has been questioning Jessie while he was incarcerated, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They have planted the idea into his highly-impressionable mind that his attorneys are not his friends. After all, listening to them landed him in prison, right? So, they finally convince him (they think) to testify. They now need a new statement, one that agrees more closely with the "facts" in the case. This statement is the culmination of their continued pressure. In the end, as we all know, Jessie didn't testify. When he was able (after the statement was made) to talk to his daddy, his daddy told him to tell the truth.

    The truth is that Jessie was not at the scene of the crime, or at the discovery site. Neither was Damien or Jason. The upcoming hearing will make this abundantly clear.

    Now, if you want a real mind-blowing experience, here's a link to the abstract of Jason's and Jessie's Rule 37 hearing, which is still pending with the ASSC. I haven't read all of this myself (it's over 900 pages long), but what I have read is very interesting indeed. There's a lively discussion about its contents on the blackboard.

    http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_rule37_brief_2_18_11.pdf

    Have fun!
    Last edited by Compassionate Reader; 02-22-2011 at 10:23 PM. Reason: typos

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by iluvmua View Post
    and this: http://www.findadeath.com/forum/show...t=3326&page=10

    Joseph puts a lot of things in prospective.

    off my soapbox until October.
    Joseph gets a lot of things wrong, too. The yuku board (http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/forums/5) has a discussion about this fallacious "document" if you care to investigate further.

    http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yu...-reason--guilt

    ETA: Unfortunately, that thread derails into a lot of name-calling and off-topic debate, but the beginning has some interesting observations.
    Last edited by Compassionate Reader; 02-22-2011 at 10:36 PM.

  5. #5
    I can't edit my post, so I'll post again. The testimony of Joseph Samuel Dwyer is in the Rule 37 transcript, starting on p. 360.

    http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_rule37_brief_2_18_11.pdf

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    There are very few injuries on any of the victims that could be caused by fists.
    Nonsense. This is a flat out lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    Also, I've seen a picture of Damien a day or so after the crimes, when he was first questioned, and his hands do not have any scrapes or scratches on them to indicate that he had been hitting anyone.
    I've seen those pictures too. Blurry jpegs of blurry full-body photos taken from a distance. You're seriously claiming that you can see enough detail on those photos to rule out scrapes on Damien's hands?

    In any case, an 18-year-old beating up an 8-year-old isn't gonna suffer a lot of damage.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by David366 View Post
    Nonsense. This is a flat out lie.

    Forensic experts disagree with you. They say that the injuries, except the basilar skull fractures, were caused by postmortem animal predation.

    I've seen those pictures too. Blurry jpegs of blurry full-body photos taken from a distance. You're seriously claiming that you can see enough detail on those photos to rule out scrapes on Damien's hands?

    In any case, an 18-year-old beating up an 8-year-old isn't gonna suffer a lot of damage.
    The damage suffered would not be a result of the eight-year-old fighting back, but simply the act of hitting another person would leave marks on the hitter's hands. If you wish to examine the original photos, I believe that they are still in the evidence room of the WMPD and are still available to the public. Again, there is no indication in these photos that Damien had hit someone the day before.
    Last edited by Compassionate Reader; 03-25-2011 at 01:43 PM. Reason: formatting

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    Forensic experts disagree with you. They say that the injuries, except the basilar skull fractures, were caused by postmortem animal predation.
    A few forensic experts, selected and paid by the defense, now claim that animal predation caused the cutting injuries. The medical examiner who did the autopsies testified that they were probably caused by a knife or piece of glass.

    But not even these new defense experts deny that there were blunt force injuries as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    Again, there is no indication in these photos that Damien had hit someone the day before.
    There is also no indication that he hadn't hit someone the day before.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by David366 View Post
    A few forensic experts, selected and paid by the defense, now claim that animal predation caused the cutting injuries. The medical examiner who did the autopsies testified that they were probably caused by a knife or piece of glass.

    The medical examiner who did the autopsies isn't even board certified. He failed the exam several (I think three) times. One of the defense experts is the man who actually wrote the textbook on forensic pathology.


    But not even these new defense experts deny that there were blunt force injuries as well.

    Yes, there was blunt force trauma, resulting is basilar skull injuries. This type of injury simply cannot be caused by the scenario in Jessie's story. He didn't say that they beat their heads against the ground or did anything that could have caused this type of severe injury.

    There is also no indication that he hadn't hit someone the day before.
    IIRC, the pictures were taken on May 7th. His mother took the pictures, so that, just in case the police beat him up when they questioned him (note how early in the investigation attention was focused on Damien), there would be proof of what he looked like before the interrogation. If he had "beaten [someone] real bad" on May 5th, like Jessie suggests, the marks on his hands and knuckles would have still been there on May 7th. If he had "beat 'em with a big ol' stick" on May 5th, again from a different one of Jessie's stories, the abrasions from holding the stick would still be there on May 7th.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    I can't edit my post, so I'll post again. The testimony of Joseph Samuel Dwyer is in the Rule 37 transcript, starting on p. 360.

    http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_rule37_brief_2_18_11.pdf
    In that above link, abstract 360-364 is a discussion of case law.


  11. #11
    Sorry for the confusion. His statement begins in Abstract 219, about half way down the page. It continues through Abstract 225, just the very top of the page. The statement about the knife starts in Abstract 222 and is continued to be discussed throughout. He also discussed the profiling by the police of those with long hair and black clothes. This starts at the very bottom of Abstract 223 and continues on to Abstract 224. I may have been citing page numbers, which started with the table of contents and included all the small Roman numerals. It was a little confusing.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    Thanks for the clarification, CR. The Joseph that posts on the findadeath forum is not the same as Joseph Dwyer. Dwyer is around Jason's age, and the other is older by 10-15 years. Also Dwyer supports Jason, and the other does not.

    On another note, holding a stick would not necessarily cause abrasions or even splinters depending on the stick. The boys carried staffs, and it's usual to remove the bark from a staff. Even if said stick wasn't a staff, it could have been from a smooth barked tree. It would all depend on the source of the stick as whether or not it might impart abrasions.

  13. #13
    jt,

    I could be wrong, but I thought that the sticks that the WMPD collected as the ones used (according to Jessie's story) were rough tree limbs. They would cause abrasions.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    http://callahan.8k.com/photos.html
    scroll down to "Sticks"

    Most are not rough barked. In some, the bark or portions of the outer bark have been removed most likely due to weathering. Others in photo 1 have had their bark removed, most likely by fire as they are charred which might make it look like the outside bark, but if you look at the length's edge, you'll see little in the way of undulations.

    Some are too light to hit anyone with (photo 4 or 5 too tired to go back and look) as they'd break, and some are broken, both smaller and larger pieces.
    Last edited by justthinkin; 03-29-2011 at 04:37 AM.

  15. #15
    jt,

    So, bottom line, you don't think that those were the branches (or sticks) used? Of course, I don't think any sticks were used because I don't believe Jessie's story, but the sloppiness of the WMPD investigation just never ceases to amaze me! How one group of "policemen" can miss so much (they left Damien's trench coat in his trailer, for example) boggles the mind.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. why did Misskelly have a trial?
    By Alchemist in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-04-2017, 11:05 AM
  2. Catholic Confession
    By hcc2007 in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 07:06 PM

Tags for this Thread