Don't think I'm trying to distract from the guilt of the WM3, in pondering these questions. I like to stay neutral because as many people have, I leaned softly towards thier innocence, & then softly towards guilt. I want to remain neutral & keep perspective.
Yes, that "documentary" certainly did a good job of fooling people.I'm not sure where else to put this comment. I find it interesting when a case is mentioned in popular culture. I got hooked on the Netflix show "Riverdale" this weekend (it's formula and over dramatic but riveting and kind of a "guilty pleasure" type of show) and there's a scene where Jughead, having been wrongly accused of murder, tells Betty, "well those 'paradise lost' kids went to jail because they wore black and listened to Metallica."
Not really important, just something I noted and thought I'd share.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using Tapatalk
Misskelley's IQ scores varied widely. If you listen to him talk - he's not the brightest bulb, but he's clearly not "handicapped", "retarded" or "disabled". If you were to listen to supporters describe him without having seen/heard him communicate, you'd think he was a drooling, mentally challenged man child. That's simply not the case.
Regardless, supporters simply can't have it both ways. If he was "mentally disabled" or "retarded" or whatever hyperbolic description supporters dishonestly throw out there - it makes zero sense that the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer.
That's absolutely ridiculous. So he's only able to be manipulated and coerced by people who want to put him in prison for the rest of his life, but not by people who are trying to save him? That's utterly laughable. And anyone who's honest and has even a modicum of logic can see that.
Of course JM's multitude of confessions is only a small piece of the puzzle that shows the WM3 are rightly convicted child murderers who also pled guilty.
Still waiting for Echols and his millionaire celeb buddies to reveal the "real killer" and show the world this exonerating evidence they promised us. Any day now, I'm sure.
Here's a good read regarding one of Misskelley's confessions to his own lawyer. Check out the comments - supporters try to quash it but they are debunked at every turn.
http://wm3truth.com/index.php/2012/...ys-confession-to-defense-lawyer-june-11-1993/
[video=youtube;_n5E7feJHw0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0[/video]
You are completely strawmanning the position. Jessie was mentally handicapped, and handicapped people can be suggestible. And contrary to what you think it would be VERY easy to trick him into confessing over his attorney's begging IF they convinced him his attorney's couldn't help him. As a friend of mine pointed out
"Yes, the so-called "Bible confession" was made privately to Dan Stidham. Greg Crow may have been present, too. The background is that Dan (and Greg?) were called to Pine Bluff because they were told that Jessie wanted to make a statement. Only an idiot would believe that there had been no communication from the State (or someone in LE) that prompted this statement. Stidham was allowed to interview Jessie prior to the statement. He wanted to assure himself that Jessie was telling a coherent story (which he wasn't) so he (Stidham) couldn't be accused of suborning perjury. As a result, Jessie didn't make a statement to LE on Feb 8, 1994. The "official" statement (taken some nine days later and after Jessie's time with his attorney/s was extremely limited - probably because the State/LE didn't want to risk another "no statement" situation) was made on Feb 17, 1994. IMO, there was most likely considerable coercion involved to get this statement - all of which LE/the State deny. However, these "officials" are capable of lying about this situation, and, IMO, they did lie. Stidham said in an interview some time after the Alford pleas that Jessie had told him about the coercion/pressure put upon him to testify. Of course, "Judge" Burnett threw Stidham's assertions right out of court. Not surprising at all, given Burnett's actions all through this case. Thank goodness that he was elected to the State Senate and Judge Laser was appointed to handle the Alford pleas!"
Jessie also said that on the drive up on the 17th the officer said he may get the chair if he didn't confess.
As for why no evidence? That's easy. The state won't hear it. In practice states REFUSE to admit error unless they have no choice so unless they have the most compelling evidence ever the state will still refuse to accept it unless it's impossible to deny. The entire reason they took the alford plea was because they would have gotten their asses kicked in court and it was a way to avoid getting beaten like a drum. So they'll dodge it again and again rather than admit a screw up. And since the three are out people kinda lost interest in the media.
This is actually a common practice. In the Clarence Brandley case it was painfully obvious after 1986 that James Robinson was the one who raped and strangled Cheryl Ferguson. The state took TWO years too approve Brandley's appeal (and even then some judges tried to downplay the state's dishonesty) and another year for the supreme court to finally shoot the state down and make them back off. I would not be surprised if they did provide evidence and the state said "i don't care **** off."
UserID also lied when he claimed Jessie's alibi changed. Jessie said he went wrestling at 730 to 8. The scuffle at the park was at 630 and NUMEROUS witnesses place Jessie in the park at 630. Two claim jessie left with a wrestling mask. No inconsistency or change, just claiming that he went to a different location as time passed. jessie DID claim he went wrestling in his later confessions.
And the point of the practice is that a.) every single person said that Jessie was at all the lessons and b.) those lessons were always on a thursday. In that regard they were consistent. Because they were teenagers the state was able to bamboozle them, aided by Jessie's lawyers being inept at the time.
I've noticed a pattern with nons. They either believe the police are infallible and wouldn't lie, have no understanding of mentally handicapped people, or are complete idiots. Dogmatica is all three
Also Dan WAS Able to get Jessie to stop confessing after September 1993. Before the confessions were him trying to please police and authority (Which he saw dan as). Once he was convicted it was easy for police and prosecutors to destroy the rapport and say "Dan can't help you we can. You do wanna see daddy and susie again right?"
UserID also lied when he claimed Jessie's alibi changed. Jessie said he went wrestling at 730 to 8. The scuffle at the park was at 630 and NUMEROUS witnesses place Jessie in the park at 630. Two claim jessie left with a wrestling mask. No inconsistency or change, just claiming that he went to a different location as time passed. jessie DID claim he went wrestling in his later confessions.
And the point of the practice is that a.) every single person said that Jessie was at all the lessons and b.) those lessons were always on a thursday. In that regard they were consistent. Because they were teenagers the state was able to bamboozle them, aided by Jessie's lawyers being inept at the time.
^ Also, to completely ignore that all of the wrestling "witnesses" were completely taken apart by the prosecution is beyond disingenuous. Each one of them didn't hold up under cross examination. Below is just one example between the prosecutor (Davis) and one of JM's wrestling "witnesses":
DAVIS: Ok. And you told police, you told Mr. Stone, you told everybody on June ninth The reason I remember it was the fifth is because thats the night we paid $300 dollars right? Thats what you told them?
REVELLE: Yes sir, thats what Id said.
DAVIS: Now, the receipt, and Im going to show you a copy of a receipt. You told officers, you said We paid $300 dollars and thats why I remember it was the fifth cause we went down thereIn fact you and Bill Cox went down there and paid him the money, right? Thats what you told officers?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok. I wanna show you a receipt. (HANDING) And does that receipt have your name at the top?
REVELLE: (EXAMINING) Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok. Youre Fred Revelle, right?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok, and does that receipt reflect that you paid Charles Stone $300 dollars?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok, and what date does that receipt show?
REVELLE: April 27th.
DAVIS: Ok, and April 27th was a Wednesday too, wasnt it?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: It was just a Wednesday the week before these murders occurred, right?
REVELLE: Im not really sure. Id have to look at a calendar.
To the bolded -- (with emphasis on the underlined, which contradicts the bolded) Hence, an "inconsistency" from his original alibi all the same.
You're being dishonest. These were teenagers and most of the kids besides Revelle were VERY consistent on the fact that Jessie went every thursday during the time the murders occurred. Since they were teens the state bamboozled them
The receipt is a red herring.
For comparison. Every first friday of the month my old dojo would have board breaking. If my alibi were that I were at board breaking and board breaking was a different day you'd have a point. If I went every friday and the murder was on a friday me getting it wrong about board breaking wouldn't mean anything.
Not really. The point is that Jessie gave an account of his movements. At 6:30 he was in the park. At 7:30 he left to go wrestling. That's his alibi and it's not contradictory at all. Dogmatica is a dumbass for treating it like a smoking gun
I gave a board breaking example. Revelle getting one thing wrong means nothing and again since they were teenagers it would have been easy for the prosecutors to bamboozle them.
And no it's almost certain they DID try to manipulate Jessie by offering to see Daddy and Suzie again. They tried to move him without informing his attorneys (both Crowe and Stidham denied being aware of the move, and Crowe directly contradicted the prosecution in another issue). They also purposefully limited the amount of time Jessie spent with Stidham after the first attempt at a statement ended in failure. Jessie also claims that on the ride up the officer said he'd get the chair and more importantly the police DID violate Jessie's rights with the car conversation so they could EASILY have conned him or left things out of their report
There's no direct proof but it's a VERY logical inference. The problem is that law and order advocates tend to live in a fairytale where cops don't do that and where prosecutors are always honest and NEVER do that
I also find it beyond curious how, the prosecution could so easily sway JM to say whatever they wanted, but Stidham, for whatever reason, was completely unable to easily manipulate JM for the sake of his own self-preservation. You can't have it both ways.