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!