Why were the boys tied in the manner they were?

I don't see a thread discussing the manner in which the boys were tied. This discussion has been conducted on other boards, so I thought I would put it here, too.

The boys were not tied in the traditional manner usually referred to as "hog tying" (wrist to wrist and ankle to ankle). They were tied wrist to ankle on both sides. There was quite a bit of slack left in the bindings - so much that the bindings could not have been for restraint purposes.

See this video: http://rugsville.yuku.com/topic/1062

So, why were the boys tied in such an unusual manner? I have an explanation, but I'd like to hear from others before I give my (and most of the supporters I know) explanation.

They were tied that way so the perps could have easy sexual access so they could demean and humiliate their victims further.

They were not tied that way for easy carrying of the bodies. If you look at the crime scene photos, you will see there is a lot of slack in the shoelaces, maybe 8" in some cases between wrist and ankle. If the intent was to carry them, there would be no slack. It's only common sense which seems to elude some supporters.

The amount of slack in the shoe laces would have made it very easy for the boys to untie themselves. That, along with the fact that there was no evidence of sexual assault, makes me doubt your theory too, Justthinkin.

Whatever the reason for tying them that way, I think they were already unconscious, or possibly already dead, before they were tied.

If they were tied for transport, as I believe, the slack in the bindings was to create "handles" so that they could be carried as you would carry a suitcase. If the bindings were tight, no "handle" would be created. The unusual method of tying (extremities on the same side being tied together) is how hogs are tied in the kill room to be transported to the butchering room. Terry Hobbs worked in a family hog slaughterhouse when he was younger.

There was no evidence of sexual molestation. Even that "genius" Peretti had to admit that there was no evidence of sodomy. The oral swabs revealed no semen, so oral sex didn't happen, either. The degloving of Christopher has been ruled (by certified forensic pathologists) to have occurred post mortem and to have been caused by animal predation. It was not the surgical procedure that Peretti claimed it to be.

The tying was done post mortem. The certified forensic pathologists ruled that the small amount of discoloration under the bindings indicated that the binding was done post mortem. If you believe Jessie's statement, he said that at least one boy was "wriggling like a worm" when placed in the water. There was not sufficient bruising under the bindings for this to have been the case.

So, they were not tied for easy sexual access as no sexual molestation occurred. They were not tied for restraint purposes as the bindings, if done to a live person, would allow for movement as the video showed. The small amount of bruising under the bindings is consistent with what would happen if the body were transported for a short distance by using the bindings as a "handle."

justthinkin said:

They were tied that way so the perps could have easy sexual access so they could demean and humiliate their victims further.

They were not tied that way for easy carrying of the bodies. If you look at the crime scene photos, you will see there is a lot of slack in the shoelaces, maybe 8" in some cases between wrist and ankle. If the intent was to carry them, there would be no slack. It's only common sense which seems to elude some supporters.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence the victims were sexually assaulted. None.

But even if there were, it would make no sense to leave slack in bindings if you were trying to insure easy sexual access to a victim. Slack bindings means a victim who can still struggle and that defeats the purpose of the bindings.

The tying has always grabbed my attention..My thoughts..
Why tie the boys up if they were already bludgeoned into oblivion?
If there was so much slack then maybe the slack was caused by stretching after they had been transported from the original crime scene.
Why tie them to have sex with them when they were almost unconscious from the attack?
Hogtied..Makes me think that the perp knew how to hogtie..Either the perp worked in a butchery, slaughterhouse or he had knowledge of how to hogtie.
Another thought that I have always hung on to..
back in the 90's, there was an explosion of *advertiser censored* videos and magazines and if one looks at the covers of these mags and videos, the majority of them had girls hogtied.It makes me think that the perp was a regular viewer of *advertiser censored* videos thus the hogtying..
Now if I was going to tie someone up in a hurry, I would go for the obvious choice of tying the hands behind the back unless I have knowledge of hogtying.I am sure an experiment done would prove this..say 100 people just to see what their first choice would be..
Jessie described the scene as very disorganized..they were drinking and it seems they were enjoying what they were doing..Did they all of a sudden get serious and decide to hogtie the boys and throw them into the stream? Why hogtie them, hide the clothes and throw them into the stream if the original crime scene was where the boys were viciously attacked and shed so much blood? This seems to be a big contradiction to all of them..How stupid of them to do that..Makes no sense...

Sharrib, good question with more than one answer.
My POV is that of a non.

One reason I can think of to tie the boys if they were unconscious, is in the event they regained consciousness. Then it would be impossible for them to run.

I used to call the way they were tied hogtying too, but it really isn't hogtying as is commonly thought of with hands tied behind, and then tied to the ankles. The boys ankles were never tied together, but only the left hand with the left ankle, the right hand with the right ankle.

I take the degloving as a sign of sexual sadism. Wounds to the genital area are to be expected and almost a given with a sexual sadist. There were also deep gouges in the groin area. I don't believe it was done by turtles. I'm not going to sit here, and deny that turtles caused none of it. They could have. I just don't believe a turtle would have degloved Chris. A turtle would take one bite or more than one depending on the size of the turtle. It would have bit it off, IMO. We're talking about something the size of a finger, and people have lost fingers to snapping turtles.

What I see is at least one perp derived pleasure from another person's sufferings. I have been meaning to go back over all 3 or 4 confessions and 2 or 3 statements made by Misskelley or purported by friends of his to be statements he made to them following the murders to see what things never change in those or change only in minor ways. I have not had time to do that this week, but hopefully I will get around to that this weekend.

I've listened to the audio tapes of a couple of Misskelley's confessions. Poor sound quality doesn't help, but I have just never heard in either Misskelley's voice of the voices of the officers present anything that sounds like coercion to me.

I wish there was a more narrative form of confession from Misskelley, but I've read even Stidham, his own attorney could not get Jessie to speak in a narrative form so everything had to be asked of him in the form of a series of questions. On one hand, it sounds like what someone might expect from someone who was a bit slow, but OTOH, he may have expected or wanted LE to have to pry it out of him. He certainly had no problem pointing Damien and Jason out as THE killers, while casting himself in a better light or trying to, and that takes me right back to what Wilkins said about the possibility of malingering.

I know you didn't address anything about the confessions or statements, but the

I believe the gouges could have easily been caused by the sharp beak of an alligator snapping turtle. I don't believe that is the only thing that could cause it, but I am convinced that it was an animal. Certified forensic pathologists have testified that it was not caused by a knife. So, since humans don't have teeth that could have inflicted that type of wound, animals makes much more sense.

As to hog tying to prevent movement if the boys regained consciousness, as the video from imout2sea has shown, the method the boys were tied would not prevent movement. The slack between the knots would have made it possible for them to move around freely. The slack was there IMO to establish "handles" to facilitate moving the bodies.

I'm sorry that you don't see instances of coercion, especially in the "clarification" statement on June 3, 1993. I do. However, I do realize, as you pointed out, that Jessie's low IQ more or less prevents him from giving a narrative account of anything, including an alibi. IMO, the only person who could coax a narrative out of Jessie that might make any sense at all would be Big Jessie, and I know that's not possible.

As to malingering, IIRC, Derning in the Rule 37 hearing saw no evidence of malingering. As to him wanting LE to coax the confession out of him, I don't see that at all. Like others of his IQ, when questioned, he looks to the interrogator for clues so that he can say what they want to hear.

As to the degloving being sexual sadism, I don't see that, either. If the attack on the boys would have been a sexual attack, I would expect to see some signs of penetration. There were none. If the sexual attack had been directed only at Chris, that would indicate a family member. To me, the fact that only Chris had injuries that have been misinterpreted to be sexual in nature means one of two things: 1) it was a family member (or someone angry at Chris for a reason related to sex - like possibly the father of a younger girl toward whom Chris had exhibited fondness) or 2) it was not a sexual attack.

Before the mtDNA results were made public, many people (including me) believed that JMB was the killer. The fact that Chris appeared to have the more severe injuries was one reason. However, after more information has been revealed (including but not limited to the mtDNA that was a 97.5% match to TH being revealed), I have reexamined my initial suspicions and found them to be as spurious as those who want to condemn Damien as the killer based on his actions at the trial and his journal writings, etc. instead of facts and/or evidence.

To me, at first glance, the circumstantial case against JMB was much stronger than the circumstantial case against the WM3. However, as a result of the continued testing, we are now beyond circumstantial evidence. The mtDNA found in or under Michael's ligature is not circumstantial. The WMPD never excluded TH as the killer. In fact, they never even questioned him until 2007.

In light of what we have learned (mainly from the Pasdar suit), I now realize that the real killer was not one who sought the spotlight as Mark did or one who was different as Damien was. The real killer was the one who tried to stay out of the spotlight and who tried to act "normal" (whatever that means) as long as possible. He has only shown his true colors in light of the recent revelations, and IMO he will continue to show himself at the upcoming hearing.

The autopsy said no "definitive" evidence of sexual assault. There were was not tearing, swelling, perforated descending colon and ect... The boys could have been sexually assaulted without penetration. Also, if any of the boys were sexually assaulted at home or elsewhere, their anal sphincters would be dilated from previous penetrations and therefore, they would be less likely to show signs of trauma from this sexual assault.

The one child with the severe head injury did not have any red marks around his ligatures because he was likely unconscious and unable to fight/pull when he was tied. The other two boys did have redness around their ligatures. They were awake when tied.

Jesse's IQ is not that low. <modsnip>

Here is what someone with an IQ of around 75 (his was 72) can do:
He can clearly report what he saw and remember what saw. He can tell right from wrong and sense danger. He can live independently. Can he do higher math like Calculus? No. Can he remember how to spell homophones? No. Can he interpret complex abstract issues? No Can he tell time? Probably not. (this is important when because he stated that the boys were killed around 12 noon) Can he count money reliably? Probably not. Can he multiply and divide? Probably not because he probably couldn't memorize his times tables.


Can he remember some of his math facts and add/subtract? Probably yes. Can he read? Probably yes, but around a 4th or 5th grade level. Can he spell easy words? Probably yes. Would he be gullible to smarter individual's schemes? Probably yes.

Pensfan said: "He can clearly report what he saw and remember what saw."

No one is disputing this fact. However, what he reported in all of his statements to LE was not what he saw. It was a story, made up to try to end the questioning.

You are also correct in saying that Jessie is not classified as mentally retarded. An IQ of 72 is "borderline mentally retarded." Since IQs can be off by a bit (some sources say plus or minus three points, sone sources say plus or minus five points), technically he could be retarded if he tested at 70 or below. That is the usual cut off point to be considered mentally retarded.

The characteristics that you listed are for an IQ of 75 which is considered the starting point of low normal functioning IIRC. Look up the characteristics for an IQ of 70. Jessie's IQ is closer to 70 than 75, so I would believe that those characteristics would be more representative, wouldn't you? The reason for the "borderline mentally retarded" classification is apparent when you consider someone like Jessie.

Compassionate Reader said:

Pensfan said: "He can clearly report what he saw and remember what saw."

No one is disputing this fact. However, what he reported in all of his statements to LE was not what he saw. It was a story, made up to try to end the questioning.

You are also correct in saying that Jessie is not classified as mentally retarded. An IQ of 72 is "borderline mentally retarded." Since IQs can be off by a bit (some sources say plus or minus three points, sone sources say plus or minus five points), technically he could be retarded if he tested at 70 or below. That is the usual cut off point to be considered mentally retarded.

The characteristics that you listed are for an IQ of 75 which is considered the starting point of low normal functioning IIRC. Look up the characteristics for an IQ of 70. Jessie's IQ is closer to 70 than 75, so I would believe that those characteristics would be more representative, wouldn't you? The reason for the "borderline mentally retarded" classification is apparent when you consider someone like Jessie.

Click to expand...

Do you know Jessie personally? If not, then you have no basis to make this statement.

Looking at an individual&#8217;s IQ score does not allow anyone to definitively determine an individual&#8217;s abilities or limitations. Social and cultural variables, disembedded thoughts, and unaddressed mental/physical health needs affect IQ scores. Although social and cultural variables are supposed to be removed from IQ testing, some are not. There is no way to remove disembedded thoughts from IQ testing. Sadly, some individuals will never have their mental or physical health needs competently addressed and if tested, they will score low because of their physical/mental issues and/or lack of desire to answer the questions.


Pensfan
--------
verified
psychiatric mental health nurse

No, I don't know Jessie personally. Do you? Unless you do, your statements are no more valid that mine. You were implying that, based on some general description of those with an IQ of 75, Jessie should be able to remember what he saw and report it. I was pointing out that 72 (Jessie's IQ) is closer to 70 than it is to 75. If we're going to look at general descriptions, we should use the descriptions for an IQ of 70 instead of those for an IQ of 75.

Although I don't know Jessie Misskelley, in my 25 years of teaching high school math, I taught many students with comparable IQs. I therefore know how someone with an IQ of 72 (borderline mentally retarded) thinks and acts. I have seen them trying to escape punishment for something they did and, more importantly, I have seen them being manipulated into saying something that is totally bogus just because they believe that, if they say what the interrogator wants to hear, the interrogation will stop. That is exactly what happened with Jessie Misskelley in all of his statements, and Dr. Tim Derning agrees with that idea in his Rule 37 testimony. It's on Callahan's.

Compassionate Reader said:

No, I don't know Jessie personally. Do you? Unless you do, your statements are no more valid that mine. You were implying that, based on some general description of those with an IQ of 75, Jessie should be able to remember what he saw and report it. I was pointing out that 72 (Jessie's IQ) is closer to 70 than it is to 75. If we're going to look at general descriptions, we should use the descriptions for an IQ of 70 instead of those for an IQ of 75.

Although I don't know Jessie Misskelley, in my 25 years of teaching high school math, I taught many students with comparable IQs. I therefore know how someone with an IQ of 72 (borderline mentally retarded) thinks and acts. I have seen them trying to escape punishment for something they did and, more importantly, I have seen them being manipulated into saying something that is totally bogus just because they believe that, if they say what the interrogator wants to hear, the interrogation will stop. That is exactly what happened with Jessie Misskelley in all of his statements, and Dr. Tim Derning agrees with that idea in his Rule 37 testimony. It's on Callahan's.

Click to expand...

You are/were a teacher and you posted your very negative judgement on children with intellectual disabilities when the same behavior can be found in children who are not intellectually disabled. <modsnip>

JM testified multiple times including once to his father. It is illogical and extremely unlikely that a father would manipulate his son to lie to him and state that he participated in the brutal murders of three children if he actually did not participate.


Pensfan
_______
verified
psychiatric mental health nurse

Pensfan said:

You are/were a teacher and you posted your very negative judgement on children with intellectual disabilities when the same behavior can be found in children who are not intellectually disabled. <modsip>.

JM testified multiple times including once to his father. It is illogical and extremely unlikely that a father would manipulate his son to lie to him and state that he participated in the brutal murders of three children if he actually did not participate.


Pensfan
_______
verified
psychiatric mental health nurse

Click to expand...

Jessie confessed to his father? Is this testimony on the callahan site, because I would like to read about it. I agree with you, a father would not manipulate his son in this way.

I don't see how compassionate reader's statement is negative judgment on mentally disadvantaged children AT ALL.It's a fact and like you state correctly all children do this in different degrees.
I have however seen you post very negative things about people with personality disorders and you are a psych nurse.

Pensfan said:

You are/were a teacher and you posted your very negative judgement on children with intellectual disabilities when the same behavior can be found in children who are not intellectually disabled. <modsnip>

JM testified multiple times including once to his father. It is illogical and extremely unlikely that a father would manipulate his son to lie to him and state that he participated in the brutal murders of three children if he actually did not participate.


Pensfan
_______
verified
psychiatric mental health nurse

Click to expand...

I am retired which is why I now have time to post on boards about this case which I have followed since 1996. If I were still teaching, I wouldn't have time to post as I do. When I was teaching, I was always sensitive to my students' needs. I was well-respected and well-loved. BTW, ad hominem attacks weaken an argument.

I was not making negative judgements. I was simply reporting things the way they are. Refusing to see the truth of things is not helpful to anyone, and students who are molly-coddled and allowed to believe that they can be electrical engineers when they can't pass Algebra 1 are being set up for some major disappointments in life IMO.

Can you provide a link to Jessie confessing to his father? I know that, before he had talked to his son, Jessie, Sr. had said that he didn't know if Jessie, Jr. was guilty or not. However, after talking to his son, and ever since then, Jessie, Sr. has maintained Jessie, Jr.'s innocence.

Jessie, Jr. has made four separate statements, all available on the Blackboard, incriminating himself and Damien and Jason. The first was on June 3, 1993, the day the teens were arrested. It was so error-filled that the judge (Pal Rainey) would not issue warrants for the arrests.

So, the WMPD got another statement, the "clarification" statement, later that afternoon. It was also error-filled, but somewhat better, although it is obvious to me that the police were asking leading questions throughout in order to get Jessie to say what they wanted to hear. He was happy to oblige. Because of his mental disability (low IQ), Jessie has trouble telling a coherent story. Answering questions works much better for him. However, it can also lead to his giving false information.

There are two post-conviction statements also. I've always wondered why the State wanted post-conviction statements from Jessie. I know that they wanted him to testify against Damien and Jason, but he would have to appear in court. A statement couldn't be introduced unless it could be cross examined by the defense. So, why did the police need these statements? IMO, it was because they knew his original statements were weak and error-filled. They were thinking about appeals down the road and felt that they'd need a more factual statement.

His third statement was on February 8, 1994, four days after his conviction. This statement was made to his own attorney, Dan Stidham. The State had been trying to get Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason in their upcoming trial. Stidham had been told that Jessie wanted to testify. He came to see what Jessie would say. This is often called the "Bible" statement because he had his hand on a Bible when giving it.

Much has been made of this statement because it was made to his own attorney. However, much of the information contained in it simply doesn't fit the crime scene or the wounds, etc. on the bodies. Very telling is the point at which, after asking Jessie to describe the scene of the crime, Stidham shows Jessie a map created by the police of the discovery ditch area. Jessie simply doesn't recognize anything on the map and keeps saying, "This ain't right." Stidham tries to help him make sense of it, but the whole statement is ridiculous simply because it's a post conviction statement. Anything that he gets right he could have learned at his own trial or from the relentless pressure from the prosecution. Bottom line, after hearing Jessie's statement, Stidham was able to convince Jessie not to testify against Damien and Jason.

The final statement Jessie made was on February 17, 1994. This is often called the "Second Confession." Again, this is a post conviction statement made against the wishes of his attorneys. Also of interest is that his attorneys weren't notified until about an hour before Jessie made the statement that he was making a statement. IMO, that was done so the attorneys wouldn't have time to change Jessie's mind like they did on February 8th.

When reading this, please pay attention to the conversation with Jessie and his attorneys that precedes the statement. It is obvious to me that the prosecution has been telling Jessie that trusting his attorneys landed him in prison. They managed, by relentless interrogations, to make Jessie believe that his own attorneys weren't on his side. Again, this last statement contains more actual facts than any of the others, but, again it's post-conviction and even this statement contains significant errors when compared to the expert testimony at the Rule 37 hearing.

After making this statement, Jessie was allowed to talk to his father. After talking to his father, Jessie decided not to testify. Some people believe that he refused to testify because Burnett disallowed a deal, but I believe that he refused to testify because his father told him that he should tell the truth. The truth is that Jessie didn't kill those little boys and doesn't know who did.

I would give you links to all four statements, but the Blackboard is experiencing problems at the moment.

Thank you, CR, for your insight & your links! Thank you for keeping your composure throughout these threads . . .

claudicici said:

I don't see how compassionate reader's statement is negative judgment on mentally disadvantaged children AT ALL.It's a fact and like you state correctly all children do this in different degrees.
I have however seen you post very negative things about people with personality disorders and you are a psych nurse.

Click to expand...

Notice that I post facts about mental illness which are found in extremely reputable medical journals and/or university websites and they are cited so you can read them and learn.

How did an innocent teen know and remember all so many details of these gruesome murders if he wasn&#8217;t there? Realize that his confessions were before MC gave his testimony and as the Memphis Three fan club likes to emphasize, JM was borderline MR.

-JM described the injuries to each children in great detail, but if he wasn&#8217;t there, he would not have known these details.
-JM knew that there were two bikes and he described them in great detail, but there were three little boys.
-JM knew that one child&#8217;s jeans were removed without unbuttoning them. How did he know this? Is he a really good guesser?
-In addition, when Jessie&#8217;s attorney was present, his attorney kept telling him to essentially shut up, but Jessie continued to confess.

STIDHAM (repeatedly): And you want to make this statement regardless of my advise against doing so?

MISSKELLEY: Yep.

The records state that Jessie Misskelley cried intensely in the month after the murders and acquaintances also saw and heard him cry frequently during this time. He also told the police that he went to the crime scene alone and cried. I think Jessie was disturbed at what had happened and he confessed because he has a conscience. Also, in many religious faiths, confession and repentance are required for healing and Jessie was ill (emotionally) about what had happened. I think it is significant that he did not attend the celebratory parties upon his release.

http://www.stidhamlawfirm.com/grisham.html

"I thought you was cops," he said. "I didn't want to die in that electric chair."

I think that sums up nicely why Jessie "confessed" JMO.
I thought he was crying because of girlfriend trouble?
Here's a source and it's from the non supporter website.
http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-crying-fits/