Hypothetical: JM's confession really was 'out'/didn't happen

This started over on the McClish thread, with me asking kyle:

Do you think that had the confession(s) never been made, there would have been convictions?

If so, based on what?

(from post #20 on): [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227020"]Mark McClish & Statement Analysis - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

And in the name of not completely derailing that thread, I made this one.

I originally asked, because I cannot help but see Misskelley's interview as intrinsically flawed, and I wondered - if there was no confession/s from Misskelley, or they had not been permitted to ever reach court (or taint a jury) - what you all thought THE strongest piece of evidence was in the way of proving guilt, in each trial.

And why.

Ausgirl said:

This started over on the McClish thread, with me asking kyle:

Do you think that had the confession(s) never been made, there would have been convictions?

If so, based on what?

(from post #20 on): Mark McClish & Statement Analysis - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

And in the name of not completely derailing that thread, I made this one.

I originally asked, because I cannot help but see Misskelley's interview as intrinsically flawed, and I wondered - if there was no confession/s from Misskelley, or they had not been permitted to ever reach court (or taint a jury) - what you all thought THE strongest piece of evidence was in the way of proving guilt, in each trial.

And why.

Click to expand...

I will assume the "confession" was given but simply not allowed in as evidence because without the confession at all the only answer is no there wouldn't have been any convictions because they never would have had a judge that would have even signed off on arrest warrants. I will assume your question assumes the "confession" was obtained but excluded at trial and give it some thought under those working assumptions.

I feel at this point compelled to add that my intention in asking/starting this thread came from a genuine place of enquiry.

I am NOT convinced (at least in Echols' case) that there should never have been a trial. I am not superglued to anybody's guilt (or innocence, except maybe Baldwin's, at this point, though this could change). I am a bona fide :fence: humpty dumpty, just waiting get to get tipped to one side of the wall or the other. And in that process, I am examining a lot of angles.

This is one of them.

Ausgirl said:

I feel at this point compelled to add that my intention in asking/starting this thread came from a genuine place of enquiry.

I am NOT convinced (at least in Echols' case) that there should never have been a trial. I am not superglued to anybody's guilt (or innocence, except maybe Baldwin's, at this point, though this could change). I am a bona fide :fence: humpty dumpty, just waiting get to get tipped to one side of the wall or the other. And in that process, I am examining a lot of angles.

This is one of them.

Click to expand...

Are you leaning toward guilt or innocence with regard to Jason? Thank you for posting this thread. I'm reserving comment until after I conquer this insomnia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

primitivefuture said:

Are you leaning toward guilt or innocence with regard to Jason? Thank you for posting this thread. I'm looking forward to everyone's thoughts. I'm reserving comment until after I conquer this insomnia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

primitivefuture said:

Are you leaning toward guilt or innocence with regard to Jason? Thank you for posting this thread. I'm reserving comment until after I conquer this insomnia.

Click to expand...

Not to be flippant, but I think there's more physical evidence to suggest Jason's mother was involved, than points in any convincing way to Jason's guilt.

Echols? Yeah, I can see why he'd be a good suspect (but perhaps not the best one I've seen).

Baldwin? Not a good suspect. Nothing about his background suggests he'd be inclined to that level of cruelty toward younger kids, and there's NO hard evidence putting him at the crime scene, putting him at odds with any of the kids or their families, or .. well, anything. There's proof he knocked around with Echols, the end. And just my opinion here, but based on his behaviour and general demeanour that I have seen, I don't see him as such a sheep or a psycho that he'd meekly go along with the brutal slaying of three little kids.

In fact, since Echols was the immediate and prime suspect, I see Domini Teers as a much more likely candidate for arrest, as her own family put her near the crime scene with muddy clothes on the day of the murders, in Echols' company. Which is a lot more than they had on Baldwin at the time.

I think Misskelley is a person who could be easily influenced, and records show he had a temper on him. I think his confession is a load of bunk, obviously it was incredibly manipulated, but I can't count him out as someone who -might- go along with something so horrible, out of fear.

Without the confession, I am looking at Echols' prior and proven violent behaviour (above and beyond the usual sort of fist fights kids get into) and the lake knife (albeit squintily), and the overheard admissions as the best evidence at hand that could have made an argument for guilt.

Ausgirl,

I'm gathering that you consider Jason to be innocent, right? If so, that leaves Damien and Jessie as possible perpetrators.

Do you give credence to Jessie's alibi witnesses - that he was in Dyess at a wrestling practice on May 5, 1993?

If so, do you believe that Damien could have committed these murders and subsequent clean-up by himself?

If not, do you have any viable suspects as his accomplices?

I'm really only wanting to see what your thinking is; I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful. I hope you understand.

Compassionate Reader said:

Ausgirl,

I'm gathering that you consider Jason to be innocent, right? If so, that leaves Damien and Jessie as possible perpetrators.

Do you give credence to Jessie's alibi witnesses - that he was in Dyess at a wrestling practice on May 5, 1993?

If so, do you believe that Damien could have committed these murders and subsequent clean-up by himself?

If not, do you have any viable suspects as his accomplices?

I'm really only wanting to see what your thinking is; I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful. I hope you understand.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to hear the answer to these questions as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compassionate Reader said:

Ausgirl,

I'm gathering that you consider Jason to be innocent, right? If so, that leaves Damien and Jessie as possible perpetrators.

Do you give credence to Jessie's alibi witnesses - that he was in Dyess at a wrestling practice on May 5, 1993?

If so, do you believe that Damien could have committed these murders and subsequent clean-up by himself?

If not, do you have any viable suspects as his accomplices?

I'm really only wanting to see what your thinking is; I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful. I hope you understand.

Click to expand...

I'd really like a raincheck on replying to those questions. They're good questions (and of course I don't mind a bit you asking them!) but I just don't feel settled enough on the facts to say more right now than --

Innocent? I am not going that far atm. 'Not a likely suspect' would be more accurate. Though that's not set in stone. Sometimes I state things out loud, just so I can argue with myself later. But right now? Baldwin's a lousy suspect, there's a lot of better ones to look at.

I actually think -something- might have been weighing on Jessie's mind, but I can't say what for sure and mean it, right now. The bottle thing really bothers me. That, and a few other things. Raincheck!

I think Damien is the -most- likely of the three to commit a crime like this. I do think that level of rage and perhaps cruelty was in him, back then. That said, there's better suspects, imo.

I hate sounding so wishy washy, sorry. I promise to not always be so. Sooner or later things will start to gel in my mind, and hey, it's not like MY opinion matters one whit to anything, but if I am to have have a concrete opinion, I want it to be a decent one that I have trouble shredding to bits (I do argue with myself, it's ridiculous).

Ausgirl said:

I'd really like a raincheck on replying to those questions. They're good questions (and of course I don't mind a bit you asking them!) but I just don't feel settled enough on the facts to say more right now than --

Innocent? I am not going that far atm. 'Not a likely suspect' would be more accurate. Though that's not set in stone. Sometimes I state things out loud, just so I can argue with myself later. But right now? Baldwin's a lousy suspect, there's a lot of better ones to look at.

I actually think -something- might have been weighing on Jessie's mind, but I can't say what for sure and mean it, right now. The bottle thing really bothers me. That, and a few other things. Raincheck!

I think Damien is the -most- likely of the three to commit a crime like this. I do think that level of rage and perhaps cruelty was in him, back then. That said, there's better suspects, imo.

I hate sounding so wishy washy, sorry. I promise to not always be so. Sooner or later things will start to gel in my mind, and hey, it's not like MY opinion matters one whit to anything, but if I am to have have a concrete opinion, I want it to be a decent one that I have trouble shredding to bits (I do argue with myself, it's ridiculous).

Click to expand...

I don't think it sounds wishy washy. I like reading your opinions precisely because you haven't made up your mind, and you're open to all the information out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bojangles is a better suspect than Baldwin.

That is all.