Dirty larry
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 2
Even according to the testimony of his attorneys Stidham and Crow, Misskelley maintained his participation in this crime for months after his arrest.
Stidham testified that he believed Misskelley was guilty, and thought it was going to be a simple plea bargain.
So what was it that changed Stidham's mind?
Well, here's the description of "False confession expert" Dr. Richard Ofshe's meeting with his client... from Stidham's own website.
The Misskelley trial was scheduled for the first of the year, 1994. On a cold December day, Dan met Ofshe face to face in Paragould. He looked like a professor--bushy gray hair, bushy gray beard. But his voice was soft and soothing. They drove together through the delta to the jail where Misskelley was housed. Dan introduced them and left them alone.
Nervously, he waited. And waited. And waited some more. After four hours, Ofshe emerged from the interview. They got in the car for the drive back to Paragould. Dan held himself in as long as he could, but a couple of blocks from the jail he blurted it out: "Well?"
Ofshe smiled at him. "He's innocent," he said.
Just who is this "false confession expert"?
What does he do?
Well, here's what he did in the case of the State of Washington vs Paul Ingram
From Ofshe's testimony at Misskelly's trial:
MR. DAVIS: Did he (Paul Ingram) enter a plea of guilty to charges of rape or sexual abuse?
Dr Ofshe: He entered -- yes -- he entered a plea to six counts of third degree rape.
MR. DAVIS: Did he maintain his guilt for a period of five months prior to entering that plea of guilty?
Dr Ofshe: Oh, yes.
MR. DAVIS: Okay, and isn't it true, Doctor, that he did not decide that he was not guilty until he talked with you?
Dr Ofshe: After he talked---
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, could he be asked to respond yes or no?
THE COURT: Yes or no and then---
Dr Ofshe: Yes, that's technically correct. However, the discussion that I had with him which was tape recorded was not a discussion that precipitated his changing his mind.
No, of course not.... it was just a coincidence.
Let's see how his meeting with Nathan Brinkle went...
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CRC99-18956CFANO
DIVISION: M
NATHAN BRINKLE
SPN: 01659274; Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS #3, MOTION TO SUPPRESS #4, AND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS #4 (HEARD FEBRUARY 14, 2002, APRIL 18,2002, AND MAY 10, 2002)
After carefully listening to his testimony offered at the May 10, 2002 hearing, the court specifically declines to adopt any of the expert testimony offered by Dr. Ofshe. As explained below, the court found his testimony to lack credibility.
<snip>
In sum, the motivators Dr. Ofshe cited, which were allegedly used by the detectives to elicit the confession in this case, were clearly rejected by the defendant in his interview at the Pinellas County Jail. Additionally, Dr. Ofshe's explanations as to why he traveled across country to interview the defendant at the Pinellas County Jail, given his firm belief that the transcript is the best indicator of what occurred at the interview, or why it was that he promised the defendant a return visit when he had no intentions of returning, were disingenuous, and frankly, confusing.
It is clear to the court, after reading the transcript of the interview conducted at the Pinellas County Jail, that Dr. Ofshe did, in fact, ask the defendant numerous leading questions, and that he did indeed suggest to the defendant that he was bated, coerced, and improperly motivated during the interview (e.g., page 26, line 15: Dr Ofshe: "You have to understand that they're playing a game with you." ). During the interview, Dr. Ofshe repeatedly suggested and even told the defendant that he was manipulated and coerced, after which the defendant then stated:
"Okay. Now I'm catching on to what's going on here.... For hours I was kind of lost before. I know she [defense counsel] told me what you was coming to really do, but, you know, until you get into it, until I get into it, you know, it really then- it's really not dawned on me."
So Ofshe is trying to coach this guy on claiming he was coerced into a false confession - and the guy doesn't even realize it for hours.
THAT's what Ofshe does.
That's exactly what he did in this case.
And that's why the "false confession" defense failed so miserably.
Stidham testified that he believed Misskelley was guilty, and thought it was going to be a simple plea bargain.
So what was it that changed Stidham's mind?
Well, here's the description of "False confession expert" Dr. Richard Ofshe's meeting with his client... from Stidham's own website.
The Misskelley trial was scheduled for the first of the year, 1994. On a cold December day, Dan met Ofshe face to face in Paragould. He looked like a professor--bushy gray hair, bushy gray beard. But his voice was soft and soothing. They drove together through the delta to the jail where Misskelley was housed. Dan introduced them and left them alone.
Nervously, he waited. And waited. And waited some more. After four hours, Ofshe emerged from the interview. They got in the car for the drive back to Paragould. Dan held himself in as long as he could, but a couple of blocks from the jail he blurted it out: "Well?"
Ofshe smiled at him. "He's innocent," he said.
Just who is this "false confession expert"?
What does he do?
Well, here's what he did in the case of the State of Washington vs Paul Ingram
From Ofshe's testimony at Misskelly's trial:
MR. DAVIS: Did he (Paul Ingram) enter a plea of guilty to charges of rape or sexual abuse?
Dr Ofshe: He entered -- yes -- he entered a plea to six counts of third degree rape.
MR. DAVIS: Did he maintain his guilt for a period of five months prior to entering that plea of guilty?
Dr Ofshe: Oh, yes.
MR. DAVIS: Okay, and isn't it true, Doctor, that he did not decide that he was not guilty until he talked with you?
Dr Ofshe: After he talked---
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, could he be asked to respond yes or no?
THE COURT: Yes or no and then---
Dr Ofshe: Yes, that's technically correct. However, the discussion that I had with him which was tape recorded was not a discussion that precipitated his changing his mind.
No, of course not.... it was just a coincidence.
Let's see how his meeting with Nathan Brinkle went...
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CRC99-18956CFANO
DIVISION: M
NATHAN BRINKLE
SPN: 01659274; Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS #3, MOTION TO SUPPRESS #4, AND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS #4 (HEARD FEBRUARY 14, 2002, APRIL 18,2002, AND MAY 10, 2002)
After carefully listening to his testimony offered at the May 10, 2002 hearing, the court specifically declines to adopt any of the expert testimony offered by Dr. Ofshe. As explained below, the court found his testimony to lack credibility.
<snip>
In sum, the motivators Dr. Ofshe cited, which were allegedly used by the detectives to elicit the confession in this case, were clearly rejected by the defendant in his interview at the Pinellas County Jail. Additionally, Dr. Ofshe's explanations as to why he traveled across country to interview the defendant at the Pinellas County Jail, given his firm belief that the transcript is the best indicator of what occurred at the interview, or why it was that he promised the defendant a return visit when he had no intentions of returning, were disingenuous, and frankly, confusing.
It is clear to the court, after reading the transcript of the interview conducted at the Pinellas County Jail, that Dr. Ofshe did, in fact, ask the defendant numerous leading questions, and that he did indeed suggest to the defendant that he was bated, coerced, and improperly motivated during the interview (e.g., page 26, line 15: Dr Ofshe: "You have to understand that they're playing a game with you." ). During the interview, Dr. Ofshe repeatedly suggested and even told the defendant that he was manipulated and coerced, after which the defendant then stated:
"Okay. Now I'm catching on to what's going on here.... For hours I was kind of lost before. I know she [defense counsel] told me what you was coming to really do, but, you know, until you get into it, until I get into it, you know, it really then- it's really not dawned on me."
So Ofshe is trying to coach this guy on claiming he was coerced into a false confession - and the guy doesn't even realize it for hours.
THAT's what Ofshe does.
That's exactly what he did in this case.
And that's why the "false confession" defense failed so miserably.
