Which confession are you referring to? There were many, many confessions. If LE could "trick" him into confessing, why could his own lawyer NOT "trick" him into STOP confessing?
Questions and All Three HBO Specials Are On Demand Now!
- Thread starter Satch
- Start date
Which confession are you referring to? There were many, many confessions. If LE could "trick" him into confessing, why could his own lawyer NOT "trick" him into STOP confessing?
It was not a violation of his rights. He was given his Miranda warning. The questioning was completely above board and legal.
You are correct regarding his IQ.
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
yeah, dogmatica i know it is impossible for you to understand why crap, told a million times, stays crap...
or are you claiming jessie knew exact details...? i'd like to see that
or what does it say when stidham found a broken liquor bottle somehwere... oh yeah, must be guilty then..
stidham and his college tricked him into confessing to an armed robbery. that's how smart our boy jessie is. please stop with your eyebrow-raising "he wasn't so stupid"...
i go with what he said, you pretend to know what was going on psychologically and emotionally with this kid, but you simply cannot know it.
or are you claiming jessie knew exact details...? i'd like to see that
or what does it say when stidham found a broken liquor bottle somehwere... oh yeah, must be guilty then..stidham and his college tricked him into confessing to an armed robbery. that's how smart our boy jessie is. please stop with your eyebrow-raising "he wasn't so stupid"...
i go with what he said, you pretend to know what was going on psychologically and emotionally with this kid, but you simply cannot know it.
1. It wasn't 12 hours. This is a fallacy the film makers of Paradise Lost introduced. Whether they introduced it knowing it was blatantly false or not is anyone's guess, but either way, it's a fallacy. It was something like 2-3 hours total that he was questioned before he confessed to the crime. Also, JM waived his right to have a lawyer present. Lastly, JM's father gave permission to police to question his son without him (Senior) being present. So there was absolutely nothing wrong with this.
2. No, actually. It isn't uncommon for the beginning of a police interview to not be recorded; or for a plethora of interviews to never be recorded at all. The police talked countless times to DE and JB, but do you hear any recordings of them (particularly before they were arrested)? No -- because police (in general) don't record every single person, every single time they talk to said person, in a murder investigation. It just doesn't happen, and it isn't exclusive to the WMPD -- no police department does that.
3. It wasn't mentioned by the defense because there's zero misconduct in either instance.
Again, no, it isn't. His father gave police direct permission to interview his son without him being present, and JM clearly stated he understood his right and waived it himself.
If you're not convinced of JM's low IQ, then you really don't have a case that this was a violation of his rights -- but even if you do think his IQ was low, there was still zero misconduct by WMPD here.
or are you claiming jessie knew exact details...? i'd like to see that
stidham and his college tricked him into confessing to an armed robbery. that's how smart our boy jessie is. please stop with your eyebrow-raising "he wasn't so stupid"...
(Snipped by me to address specific point) I know you asked Dogmatica, but actually, JM did know exact details. He knew which particular victim suffered which particular injury: SB with the face injury, and CB with the immasculation. He even knew which victim "ran away" from where the other two were: MM, who was found farther up the creek than the other two; and he correctly states he was "beaten" and never mentions this particular victim being cut at all, which he wasn't. He correctly and clearly states this, even in the first confession.
I know he gets many things wrong in the first confession, but even so, he still knows specifics in that same confession. He also knows the layout of the woods with regard to the Blue Beacon and East Field, and correctly identifies his exact route to and from the crime scene itself. He wouldn't have known that information without any previous knowledge at all about the location.
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
yeah, emphasis on location... so he was there before. fine.
come on, Userid.. you know that interview... it starts all wrong - they met in the morning, wrong, then it reads like echols beat em to death, no bruises on echols knuckles when they talked to him shortly after, ropes instead of laces, how many times is jessie saying that he left... but still was able to talk about what the other 2 did even though he... frigging left.
gitchell saying "this one", jessie "yeah this one - who knows if gitchell wasn't just pointing with his finger on that boy on the picture - it's a frigging audio recording. we just never know.
2nd statement begins with gitchell trying to get the time right. what do you think happened when the recorder was off again...? have you ever considered what jessie actually said about them pressuring him?
IMO this a mixture of fed information, made up things by jessie, things he got right by chance, things he knew or once saw, things we never know, and determined detectives who wouldn't let go until they have it all neatly on paper and on record.
come on, Userid.. you know that interview... it starts all wrong - they met in the morning, wrong, then it reads like echols beat em to death, no bruises on echols knuckles when they talked to him shortly after, ropes instead of laces, how many times is jessie saying that he left... but still was able to talk about what the other 2 did even though he... frigging left.
gitchell saying "this one", jessie "yeah this one - who knows if gitchell wasn't just pointing with his finger on that boy on the picture - it's a frigging audio recording. we just never know.
2nd statement begins with gitchell trying to get the time right. what do you think happened when the recorder was off again...? have you ever considered what jessie actually said about them pressuring him?
IMO this a mixture of fed information, made up things by jessie, things he got right by chance, things he knew or once saw, things we never know, and determined detectives who wouldn't let go until they have it all neatly on paper and on record.
I disagree that "it reads like DE beat em to death." The only one JM indicates as to who pummeled the victims, was himself, before the other two. He implicated the other two in simulating rape with the victims. He implicated DE "used a big ol stick."
Couple things:
JM himself admitted he deliberately lied in the initial confession in order to confuse police.
Also, he kept saying he left because he obviously was trying to downplay his own role/involvement in the murders. It's just that, he couldn't keep track of his lie as to when he left.
Lastly, it's impossible he "got things right by chance." That's ludicrous and way too convenient of an excuse.
Couple things:
JM himself admitted he deliberately lied in the initial confession in order to confuse police.
Also, he kept saying he left because he obviously was trying to downplay his own role/involvement in the murders. It's just that, he couldn't keep track of his lie as to when he left.
Lastly, it's impossible he "got things right by chance." That's ludicrous and way too convenient of an excuse.
yeah, dogmatica i know it is impossible for you to understand why crap, told a million times, stays crap...
or are you claiming jessie knew exact details...? i'd like to see that
stidham and his college tricked him into confessing to an armed robbery. that's how smart our boy jessie is. please stop with your eyebrow-raising "he wasn't so stupid"...
i go with what he said, you pretend to know what was going on psychologically and emotionally with this kid, but you simply cannot know it.
Uh huh. And who was tricking him all the times he confessed with no police around? You have presented NOTHING in all your posts that points to their innocence. Nothing. You deny facts, sweep them under the rug, dodge them....then offer up absolutely zero to give anyone any reason to believe these 3 child murderers are innocent. Try posting at least ONE thing that contains any substance what so ever. ONE thing. I dare ya.
Meantime, let's try this one more time.
If Jessie was so intensely stupid, so easily coerced, so easily talked into saying absolutely anything anyone wanted him to say, why could his own lawyer not stop him from CONTINUING to confess?
I'm dying to hear you explain that one. Not sweep it under the rug, ignore or deny it. Explain it.
This will all simply be denied or explained away by fairy dust.
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
the whole reason for JM to talk to police was the reward money... initially. then, he just wanted to got out of there.
@Userid
"by chance", or "by accident" i don't know how you say zufällig... like he knows the woods. and says "yeah he hit that one".. and a victim was hit... yeah, nostradamus, for real *rolleyes* do you think that the cops were there for a nice little chat and touched him with velvet gloves..? ... these cops knew the details and were desperate, and i'm thinking that a lot what was going on pre-interview was to get ready for the point when someone pressed "rec" on the tape recorder.
@dogmatica
why could his own lawyer not stop him from CONTINUING to confess?
here comes my answer - are you holding onto your chair cause that's gonna be... pfew.. i mean real heavy:
cause he is jessy misskelly.
(whoa... seriously, that was unexpected, right?)
@Userid
"by chance", or "by accident" i don't know how you say zufällig... like he knows the woods. and says "yeah he hit that one".. and a victim was hit... yeah, nostradamus, for real *rolleyes* do you think that the cops were there for a nice little chat and touched him with velvet gloves..? ... these cops knew the details and were desperate, and i'm thinking that a lot what was going on pre-interview was to get ready for the point when someone pressed "rec" on the tape recorder.
@dogmatica
why could his own lawyer not stop him from CONTINUING to confess?
here comes my answer - are you holding onto your chair cause that's gonna be... pfew.. i mean real heavy:
cause he is jessy misskelly.
(whoa... seriously, that was unexpected, right?)
No matter how much you try to spin it to fit your argument, you simply are never going to be able to explain how in the holy hell he was able to get which particular victims (all three) received which specific injuries (the immasculation, the face-cutting, the beating only). I've been fair with you as best I can, but "He just got lucky" isn't a valid argument, I'm sorry.
Leslievernon, you also seem to be moving the goal posts now.
First, you asked (Dogmatica) what specific details JM got right. I answered this question, directly. Now, you're saying "he just got lucky" and are moving away from the fact that I answered your initial question. Now you're trying to divert the subject slightly from "he didn't get any specific details right" (he did) to "well, he just got lucky then." This will sound self-righteous, but I'll say it anyways because it's what I honestly believe: you're better than that.
First, you asked (Dogmatica) what specific details JM got right. I answered this question, directly. Now, you're saying "he just got lucky" and are moving away from the fact that I answered your initial question. Now you're trying to divert the subject slightly from "he didn't get any specific details right" (he did) to "well, he just got lucky then." This will sound self-righteous, but I'll say it anyways because it's what I honestly believe: you're better than that.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I have never been able to in my mind come up with the forensics that link them to the murders once and for all, or TH or whoever did this? When two of the victims own families now believe in the WM3's innocence, that is very powerful information considering the horror of the crimes. I am sure that they did not come to this decision overnight. In the beginning, I thought that they were probably guilty. But now, there's too much reasonable doubt for me to believe in their guilt. We need closure to this case , I don't think we ever got closure.
If these three kids did this, or even just DE, and the other two had nothing to do with this, they really planned a very elaborate crime. I still have the problem with the lack of the DNA. Why is there no DNA from the defendants on the victims if they are guilty. And why does TH act so shady, if he had nothing to do with this? At least JMB, yea, he may act strange, but he did comply with all the testing and interviews and did everything asked of him. TH needs to clear the air and do the same.
If these three are guilty, how did this play out? No one to my knowledge has even done a reconstruction of what was said and done. I think Damian could be intimidating, but I don't sense the same vibes from Jason and Jessie. I would like to hear what you guys think started this? It's like, "Let's kill three 8-year old kids on their bikes for the hell of it." How did they get rid of the blood? The clothes? Whoever did this? Where's all the blood from this murder? Too many things just don't make sense.
Satch
If these three kids did this, or even just DE, and the other two had nothing to do with this, they really planned a very elaborate crime. I still have the problem with the lack of the DNA. Why is there no DNA from the defendants on the victims if they are guilty. And why does TH act so shady, if he had nothing to do with this? At least JMB, yea, he may act strange, but he did comply with all the testing and interviews and did everything asked of him. TH needs to clear the air and do the same.
If these three are guilty, how did this play out? No one to my knowledge has even done a reconstruction of what was said and done. I think Damian could be intimidating, but I don't sense the same vibes from Jason and Jessie. I would like to hear what you guys think started this? It's like, "Let's kill three 8-year old kids on their bikes for the hell of it." How did they get rid of the blood? The clothes? Whoever did this? Where's all the blood from this murder? Too many things just don't make sense.
Satch
I agree,
Gitchell just kept interrogating him over and over until he got the answers that he wanted from JM. They were probably gonna sit there til the end of time theoretically. JM got mentally beat down by Gitchell and said what he wanted hear so that JM could go home. This was a forced confession.
Satch
There was no DNA found from anyone. The water destroyed any forensic evidence, and the time the crime took place (93), the science was far from where it is now. Even the hair that was found, doesn't definitively match TH. It matches one percent of the population at the time, which yes does include TH, but which is in the hundreds of possible people that could be the source of it. The DJ hair is even more people.
You don't see the "same vibes" from JM because you don't know all the reports about him -- JM was the worst one out of all of them. He regularly fought people and was a notorious hot head. He loved wrestling but he also loved playing the "bad azz." JB -- okay, you're right there -- but JM was just as bad (if not worse) as DE, as far as fighting/violence goes.
The clothes were recovered at the scene, so I'm confused by your question. Only a few items (2 pair underwear and 5 socks) were missing -- those items were small enough to float down the creek and into the bayou, so for all we know, they simply were never found. There have been scenarios offered: a bullying that got out of hand, by two teens who were known to bully kids, and one who went along with it (JB). There was indeed blood found at the scene, and it isn't totally inconceivable that the attack that would have produced the most blood (immasculation and face wound) took place in or near the water, particularly on the east shelf, which was clearly "slicked off." Nothing about this site says it was simply a "dump site" -- it was right next to two 24 hour establishments, with an entire apartment complex overlooking it -- if you were going to dump bodies somewhere, this would have been the last place you would have chosen, particularly when you have the Mississippi river right there at your disposal.
No, he didn't. JM came in voluntarily and confessed 2 hours later, that same day. There is nothing that "proves" that this was a "forced confession," other than mere speculation of what was said before the interview started being recorded, which one could just as easily speculate was innocuous.
This is all unequivocally false.
The supporters in this thread (and elsewhere) that keep asking these same questions and pointing to untruths in regard to these things - READ THIS. And try really, really hard not to just pretend you didn't read it, and understand it. Try really hard to not just sweep it under the rug. Think. Think critically - and realize that these FACTS decimate the untruths you are throwing around regarding said facts.