Yes, you are.
It is a moot point, because the intelligence level IS the major factor in determining the ability of Jesse to give a waiver knowlingly, voluntarily and intelligently as the law requires, not the defense team's actions.
I Don't know how to break this to you, but Misskelley had knowlingly, voluntarily and intelligently given his waiver many times in the past.
Perhaps when you get the opportunity, you can have a look at the pre-trial hearings which covered this extensively.
Where is your evidence that he went on to tell the same story to his own attorneys for months afterwards?
Will Stidham's web-site do for you?
Jessie Misskelley Sr. had become something of a pain. Every time Dan and Greg turned on the news, there was "Big Jessie" talking to the press, telling them a story about his son having been wrestling fifty miles away in Dyess, Arkansas, when the murders were committed. And yet Little Jessie kept telling Dan the story he'd told the police. Dan figured the father was just in denial.
http://www.stidhamlawfirm.com/grisham.html
If that's not enough, there's always Stidham's testimony at Misskelley's Rule 37 hearing.
(which by the way there was never a same story, it changed every time
Not according to Stidham...
In every meeting Dan and Greg had with their client, Misskelley never wavered from his story.
The only documentation is the confession made against the advice of his attorneys.
You are painfully misinformed, which is something you might want to take into consideration BEFORE you expound on this case with such.... "authority".
His own attorneys told you that he told them the same story several times after his arrest or what?
Since it's on his website, It's not really ever been a secret or anything.
Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that you aren't as familiar with the facts of this case as you would like to believe?
And there is a very rational explanation for why he turned against his attorneys.
You seem confused again.
You were asked to provide a rational explaination for why he maintained his participation in the crime for months after his arrest.
You were also asked to show us when the Prosecution had the opportunity to speak with Misskelley prior to his post conviction confessions.
If you can't answer, just say so.
do they intentionally let it be vague? I think so.
So in other words, you CAN'T show us which questions were leading, and which were simply reiterating what Misskelley had already told them.
You did not answer to the fact that in order for his civil rights to have not been violated here, that his waiver of miranda, and right to counsel has to encompass "the totality of the circumstances" which I believe it does not.
That's probably because you have never read a line of testimony from the pre-trial hearing where all of this was covered.
His intelligence level, maturity level, education level, whether he reasonably believed he was free to go, his AGE for gosh sakes, the size of the room - all things must be considered to prove that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived these rights and gave this confession and I just don't see it.
I'm certainly not surprised, given you aren't even remotely familiar with the hearing where this was covered.
I can help you if you like?
Jessie Jr. and Jessie Sr. were hoodwinked more than once.
I notice you are awfully short on examples?
What's up with that?
When I get done with all things Jessie I'll move on
Since you haven't presented a single thing to support any claim you have made, and in fact have been proven wrong the majority of the time, I don't see you finishing with "all things Jessie" anytime soon.
I'm shocked and appalled at this confession ever coming into court
It might help you to look into the proceedings where that decision was made.
That way you can actually address the issue.
I am however a very big fan of our constitutional rights and I believe his were violated.
But then, you really couldn't know, could you?
I mean, you didn't even know where the post conviction statement took place, let alone that there was a pre-trial hearing regarding Misskelley's MANY prior Miranda waivers.
That's all I have to say about that
Probably for the best, until you get some handle on what actually took place and all.
So basically whether test results were manipulated or not, the factor is that Jessie was not and adult, was not mature, intelligent, or educated and could have been psychologically incapable of getting a fair shake in that interrogation room.
Still can't come to terms with the fact that Misskelley maintained his participation in this crime to his own attorneys for months after his arrest I see.
It's a bitter pill for those who were... "hoodwinked" by Paradise lost.
I can understand your urgency to evade this particular discussion at this point, given how oblivious you are to what actually took place, but I'm afraid that even though you may be finished, that doesn't preclude others here from pointing out that you've been wrong about pretty much every point you have raised, and have avoided every question asked of you.
I mean, if you don't intend to support any of your claims, you can just say that?
