West of Memphis

[Compassionate Reader]

There's one thing I'd like to address up front. That's the idea that an eighteen-year-old is an adult. First, they can't buy liquor until 21. Second, they can't enter into a contract until 21. In short, they're not legal adults until they're 21. Yes, they can vote because they can serve in the military. However, Mark Twain's statement, "When I was 18, I thought my father was a complete idiot. Three years later, I was surprised at how much he had learned" is a propos in this situation. Most people mature a lot between eighteen and 21.

Yes, they are tried as adults when accused of a capital crime, but Jason (at 16) and Jessie (at 17) were also tried as adults. I've even heard of cases of much younger children being tried as adults when accused of a heinous crime. So, trying to imply that Damien was lying or dodging or whatever when he said that, at the time of the crime, he and Jason and Jessie were "just kids" is disingenuous at the least and downright smarmy at its worst.

As to why we saw less of Jason and Jessie, and therefore heard them professing their innocence less, that was simply because Damien was the "poster child" of the case because he was the one on Death Row. Jason has been speaking out quite a bit since the release. Jessie hasn't, true, but that's understandable given his mental deficiency. If you've seen more of Damien it's probably because he is promoting his book and he is the best-known of the three because he was the one interviewed most often while incarcerated.

Make no mistake, all three maintained their innocence while in prison and would have been glad to "shout it from the rooftops" whenever given the chance. Jason and Jessie were simply not given the chance in prison and, as Damien mentioned in the quote above, if they spoke out too loudly or too often, it could lead to beatings and loss of privileges and/or possessions. Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no evidence that any of them "confessed" after their convictions. Jessie's infamous "Hand on the Bible" statement to his attorney and the subsequent statement to authorities were merely his last attempt to "go home" which is all he ever wanted to do!

 

[kyleb]

In short, they're not legal adults until they're 21.

Adult Law & Legal Definition:

An adult is a person who has attained the age of majority. The age of majority is the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of adulthood. The age of majority is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but is 18 in most states.

And regarding Arkansas law:

All persons of the age of eighteen (18) years shall be considered to have reached the age of majority and be of full age for all purposes. Until the age of eighteen (18) years is attained, they shall be considered minors.

Granted, that's from 2010. Perhaps the age of majority was higher in Arkansas when the murders were committed, but one would have to cite Arkansas law from back then to prove as much, quoting Twain does nothing of the sort.

Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no evidence that any of them "confessed" after their convictions.

confess

• to acknowledge or avow (a fault, crime, misdeed, weakness, etc.) by way of revelation.

Notable excerpts from Misskelley's 2/8/94 statement where he confessed to involvement in the murders:

MISSKELLEY: When the boys came up, Damien grabbed one of them, I don't know which one, and the other two tried to get Damien to stop, and then me and Jason come out and started grabbing them, started hitting them.

MISSKELLEY: No, I didn't - until Damien told me, “Get him." And then that’s when I went back after him and got him. Then I brought him back and that's when -

MISSKELLEY: Where did I hit him at? The head.

MISSKELLEY: I did, I was hitting him. Just hitting him, steady hitting him.

Furthermore, notable excerpts from Misskelley's 2/17/94 statement where he again confessed to involvement in the murders:

MISSKELLEY: Me and Jason jump out and grabbed'm.

MISSKELLEY: We started hitting'm.

MISSKELLEY: I was still hitting that one.

MISSKELLEY: Yea, he was telling me stop and then I stopped and Damien told me, no, no don't stop. And I got on'm again.

MISSKELLEY: I didn't pay any attention to them, I just kept on hitting that one.

MISSKELLEY: He wanted to do that one I was hitting, he wanted to do him the same way and I wouldn't let'm.

MISSKELLEY: We tied'm up.

Your assertion regarding motive behind Misskelley's confessions do nothing to change the fact that they are confessions, and neither does the assertion that his story was coerced which [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9117331&postcount=175"]you proffered yesterday[/ame] but have yet to substantiate. If you have any actual evidence to dispute the veracity of Misskelley's many statements implicating himself along with Baldwin and Echols in the murders, please share.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The boys were not tied with ropes.

The crime did not take place at noon.

There was no sexual assault.

Jessie stated in his original "confession" that the boys were tied with ropes, that the crime took place at noon and that Damien and Jason sexually assaulted the boys. (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html)

When you review the "clarification" statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html), the coercion is obvious. You can actually hear them feeding Jessie the information.

The "Hand on the Bible" statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html) was made, according to Dan Stidham, after the authorities had been trying to convince Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason. It was made post conviction, in fact, on Feb. 8, 1994, so it's natural that, after having heard the prosecution's theory in his trial, that Jessie would be able to more closely follow the story that some have called Gitchell's "confession."

The infamous "Second Confession" (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html) was made on Feb. 17, 1994, again post conviction and after the prosecutors had worked more with Jessie. Even these post conviction confessions had glaring errors! For example, in the 2/8 statement, when Stidham shows Jessie a police map of the area where the murders occurred, he didn't recognize it!

 

[slowbutsteady]

i am interested to see 'west of memphis' - i don't post a lot, but am sure you all have seen from my posts that i believe the WM3 to be guilty. i am really looking, reading, being as openminded as possible - but i am still not convinced, at all, that the WM3 are innocent.

have watched all 3 of the 'lost' documentaries, read the 1st devils knot book, the 'blood of innocents' book, and have read every thread on this site. have also spent hours reading the transcripts @ www callahan - i am just NOT seeing/feeling any warm fuzzies for these 3 guys. to me - it seems like the cops had the bad guys right where they belonged.

will be interesting to watch/read what happens going forward. frankly ... i'm not seeing exonerations flying around anytime soon.

but i am trying to keep an open mind. those 3 little boys deserve justice.

I totally agree with you. I think they did it as well. There is a website that has EVERYTHING in it...all the case files, documents, trial transcrips. I thought they weren't guilty for the longest time, until I started reading the files that are on this website. I suggest you take a look and see where it leads you... http://callahan.8k.com/documents_az.html (I've never posted a link before, so hopefully you can find it.)

 

[kyleb]

The boys were not tied with ropes.

The crime did not take place at noon.

There was no sexual assault.

Only the second claim you list is a verifiable fact. The other two are likely possibilities given the evidence available, but neither have been actually proved by any stetch. Regardless, even if all three could be proven, that wouldn't do anything to prove your claim of coercion. Also from the rest of your post i get the impression that you're misusing the term coercion, so I'll post some definitions of it:

coercion

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
   
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Given the above, and in particular your claim that "can actually hear them feeding Jessie the information": I'm left to suspect you don't have any evidence to support your claim of coercion, and what you actually mean to reefer to is coaching. In that regard, I agree completely, there's coaching in the confessions you refer to. That said, I'm not aware of any way to determine what might have been a matter of others putting words in Misskelley's mouth or simply others prompting Misskelley to repeat on record information which he'd previously offered on his own. Also, Misskelley's 2/17/94 confession isn't rightly called his "Second Confession" by any reasonable measure, as you've already noted the ones on 6/3/93 and 2/8/94, and there are records of confessions on 6/11/93, 8/19/93 and 2/4/94 as well.

Finally, the notion that errors in in a confession prove the confessor innocent is absurd on its face. Were people to apply that standard, any criminal could evade punishment simply by giving an error filled confession. Even some criminals attempting to come clean would walk free due to faulty memory. Surely that's not the kind of world you aspire to live in?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Obviously, you're one of those nons who would believe the moon was made of green cheese if the wmpd said so. Coaching or coercion, the interrogators told Jessie what to say. He wasn't there.

 

[kyleb]

No, I'm the type of person who weighs all claims against the available evidence, regardless of who makes them, and your claim that Misskelley wasn't there doesn't even come close to squaring with the evidence I've seen.

 

[iluvmua]

There's one thing I'd like to address up front. That's the idea that an eighteen-year-old is an adult. First, they can't buy liquor until 21. Second, they can't enter into a contract until 21. In short, they're not legal adults until they're 21. Yes, they can vote because they can serve in the military. However, Mark Twain's statement, "When I was 18, I thought my father was a complete idiot. Three years later, I was surprised at how much he had learned" is a propos in this situation. Most people mature a lot between eighteen and 21.

Yes, they are tried as adults when accused of a capital crime, but Jason (at 16) and Jessie (at 17) were also tried as adults. I've even heard of cases of much younger children being tried as adults when accused of a heinous crime. So, trying to imply that Damien was lying or dodging or whatever when he said that, at the time of the crime, he and Jason and Jessie were "just kids" is disingenuous at the least and downright smarmy at its worst.

As to why we saw less of Jason and Jessie, and therefore heard them professing their innocence less, that was simply because Damien was the "poster child" of the case because he was the one on Death Row. Jason has been speaking out quite a bit since the release. Jessie hasn't, true, but that's understandable given his mental deficiency. If you've seen more of Damien it's probably because he is promoting his book and he is the best-known of the three because he was the one interviewed most often while incarcerated.

Make no mistake, all three maintained their innocence while in prison and would have been glad to "shout it from the rooftops" whenever given the chance. Jason and Jessie were simply not given the chance in prison and, as Damien mentioned in the quote above, if they spoke out too loudly or too often, it could lead to beatings and loss of privileges and/or possessions. Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no evidence that any of them "confessed" after their convictions. Jessie's infamous "Hand on the Bible" statement to his attorney and the subsequent statement to authorities were merely his last attempt to "go home" which is all he ever wanted to do!

Isn't age 21 the age of majority?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Isn't age 21 the age of majority?

Yes. You can't buy liquor until you're 21. You can't sign contracts until you're 21. You can vote and serve in the military and do a few other "adult" things at 18, but you cannot exercise all rights and privileges of being "adult" until you are 21.

 

[kyleb]

As I explained above, by citing sources:

Adult Law & Legal Definition:

An adult is a person who has attained the age of majority. The age of majority is the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of adulthood. The age of majority is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but is 18 in most states.

And regarding Arkansas law:

All persons of the age of eighteen (18) years shall be considered to have reached the age of majority and be of full age for all purposes. Until the age of eighteen (18) years is attained, they shall be considered minors.

Granted, that's from 2010. Perhaps the age of majority was higher in Arkansas when the murders were committed, but one would have to cite Arkansas law from back then to prove as much, quoting Twain does nothing of the sort.

Furthermore, joining the military requires signing a contract, and can be done at the age of majority, which as the explained by the source I cited above is 18 years of age in most states. The 21 years of age requirement of alcohol is a separate matter which has nothing to do with when one is considered legally an adult.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

None of the debate about whether the "age of majority" is eighteen or twenty-one is important. What's important is that an eighteen-year-old is still a teenager. Most of them are still living at home (or have just left home for college).

Damien's statement, which started all this, is still accurate. The term "kids" is still applicable to those in their teens. Remember, Damien turned eighteen in December of 1992. So, I still contend, as Damien said, that they were still "kids" when they were arrested and falsely convicted of murdering three eight-year-old children.

IMO, age is merely a number. Being an "adult" means a person has achieved a certain maturity about his thoughts actions. I don't think Damien, Jason or Jessie exhibited "adult" maturity during the trials.

 

[kyleb]

I agree that 18 year old are generally still kids in many ways, but that doesn't make your statement "they're not legal adults until they're 21" true by any stretch. While you apparently don't consider it important to respect the truth, I do.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Again, they can't buy alcohol; they can't enter gambling establishments. They can legally sign contracts in some, but not all, states and commonwealths. They are simply not totally legal until 21. My statement is true. I, too, respect the truth, and the truth is that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. are innocent of the murders of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Steve Branch. Do you respect that truth?

 

[seattlechiquita]

Wesdt of Memphis is showing in town this week --- though I wonder how much material could it provide beyond thew previous trilogy. Any of you folks seen it yet?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It provides quite a bit of new information, from what I've been told.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Will try to watch it soon.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Does anyone know if they included the bonus footage that was cut out of the original Paradise Lost movie?

I have not seen the latest movie, but I did however see this clip that was cut out of the original movie. I thought this was very interesting.

A deleted scene from the original Paradise Lost documentary. It shows a necklace or pendant that belonged to Damien Echols, being discussed between the defense and prosecution. The necklace or pendant was found to have Echols blood on it and also blood that was consistent with fellow killer Jason Baldwin and Victim Stevie Branch.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ"]Deleted scene from Paradise Lost - Necklace - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kyleb]

No, there's no mention of the necklace in West of Memphis. There's no real evidentiary value in it for either side of the argument though either, as the blood could be from Branch or many millions of other people who share that same bloodtype, Baldwin being but one notable alternative. There's also no way to rightly discern if Echols was wearing that necklace at the time of the murders. Had DNA testing back then been what it is today, perhaps the blood would have proven to be Branch's, which would have made the case against against Echols a slam dunk. However, even with Misskelley consistently identifying Echols as the one who attacked Branch, but the blood type match has perfectly reasonable alternative explanations.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

What I found very interesting about that clip is that the prosecutors only met with Jason's attorneys. Damien's attorneys were not present, although the two were being tried together. It was obviously yet another attempt to get Jason to incriminate Damien. However, as was stated, since all they had at the time was blood typing, the information was useless because it couldn't prove who was the donor of the blood - only who was not.

Additionally, the prosecutors were careful to state that they only wanted to introduce the necklace to show it had blood that was possibly Steven's and Damien's on it. They assured Jason's attorneys that they didn't even want to mention the possibility that the blood was Jason's and Damien's. Does anyone else find that slightly disingenuous?

IMO, the most likely scenario for the blood on the necklace is shaving cuts. Since Jason and Damien were best friends, they shared the necklace. My theory is that the blood (remember, it was drops only and was consumed by the initial testing) got on the necklace at two different times and both as a result of a nick while shaving.

 

[kyleb]

Echols' attorney, Val Price, was at the necklace meeting, as can be seen in starting at around 3:15 in the video.