Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by iluvmua, Feb 22, 2011.
and this: http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3326&page=10
Joseph puts a lot of things in prospective.
off my soapbox until October.
Yes, enjoy Jessie's own words that, for the most part, the important part, the crime itself, do not agree with the evidence.
DAVIS: Ok. Now when you grabbed one and Jason grabbed one what happened next?
MISSKELLEY: We started hitting'm.
DAVIS: With what ?
MISSKELLEY: Fist at first.
There are very few injuries on any of the victims that could be caused by fists. Also, I've seen a picture of Damien a day or so after the crimes, when he was first questioned, and his hands do not have any scrapes or scratches on them to indicate that he had been hitting anyone.
DAVIS: Ok. Were they, at some point did they get hit with anything besides your fist?
DAVIS: Who hit'm with a stick?
MISSKELLEY: Damien, I hit, I hit one of'm with a stick
There was no bark found embedded in the flesh of any of the victims as would have been the case if they had been hit with a stick as Jessie describes.
Now, look carefully at this exchange:
DAVIS: Ok. Now what did Jas, what did you see Jason and Damen do to the other two (2)?
MISSKELLEY: Well Damien screw one of'm.
DAVIS: When your saying he going screw him, what did you see him do?
Davis knows that there is no evidence of sexual penetration, so, when Jessie says that Damien "screw one of'm," he quickly changes it to "going to screw him."
I could go on through the testimony and point out how often it appears that Jessie had been coached by someone prior to making this statement, and was still having to be corrected throughout the statement, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence. Read through the statement and see for yourself. It's true that this statement contains more information that agrees with the police theory at the time than his other statements did. However, it is still full of inaccuracies that just wouldn't be there if Jessie had actually been at the scene of those murders.
Don't miss the testimony about the knife. Jessie describes a "lock-blade" knife, not the serrated knife of the famous grapefruit experiment. Also, there is a statement by someone - I think his name is Sam Dwyer (I'll find out and edit if I'm wrong) - that says that Jason's mother threw a serrated blade knife into the lake before the murders because she didn't want Jason to have such a knife.
Remember, in the trial, the prosecution carefully demonstrated how the wounds were caused by a serrated knife? That's just not true. In the upcoming evidentiary hearing, evidence from forensic pathologists, one of whom literally wrote the book on forensic pathology (unlike the State's Peretti who couldn't even pass his certification test, in three tries), will be introduced to indicate that those alleged knife wounds were actual post mortem animal predation wounds.
This final statement of Jessie's is, in short, still full of inaccuracies. Also of interest is the beginning exchange where it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that, by his belligerent responses, Jessie has come to distrust his attorneys, especially Stidham. Does any one have a reasonable explanation as to how or why that happened?
IMO, the prosecution has been questioning Jessie while he was incarcerated, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They have planted the idea into his highly-impressionable mind that his attorneys are not his friends. After all, listening to them landed him in prison, right? So, they finally convince him (they think) to testify. They now need a new statement, one that agrees more closely with the "facts" in the case. This statement is the culmination of their continued pressure. In the end, as we all know, Jessie didn't testify. When he was able (after the statement was made) to talk to his daddy, his daddy told him to tell the truth.
The truth is that Jessie was not at the scene of the crime, or at the discovery site. Neither was Damien or Jason. The upcoming hearing will make this abundantly clear.
Now, if you want a real mind-blowing experience, here's a link to the abstract of Jason's and Jessie's Rule 37 hearing, which is still pending with the ASSC. I haven't read all of this myself (it's over 900 pages long), but what I have read is very interesting indeed. There's a lively discussion about its contents on the blackboard.
Joseph gets a lot of things wrong, too. The yuku board (http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/forums/5) has a discussion about this fallacious "document" if you care to investigate further.
ETA: Unfortunately, that thread derails into a lot of name-calling and off-topic debate, but the beginning has some interesting observations.
I can't edit my post, so I'll post again. The testimony of Joseph Samuel Dwyer is in the Rule 37 transcript, starting on p. 360.
Nonsense. This is a flat out lie.
I've seen those pictures too. Blurry jpegs of blurry full-body photos taken from a distance. You're seriously claiming that you can see enough detail on those photos to rule out scrapes on Damien's hands?
In any case, an 18-year-old beating up an 8-year-old isn't gonna suffer a lot of damage.
The damage suffered would not be a result of the eight-year-old fighting back, but simply the act of hitting another person would leave marks on the hitter's hands. If you wish to examine the original photos, I believe that they are still in the evidence room of the WMPD and are still available to the public. Again, there is no indication in these photos that Damien had hit someone the day before.
A few forensic experts, selected and paid by the defense, now claim that animal predation caused the cutting injuries. The medical examiner who did the autopsies testified that they were probably caused by a knife or piece of glass.
But not even these new defense experts deny that there were blunt force injuries as well.
There is also no indication that he hadn't hit someone the day before.
IIRC, the pictures were taken on May 7th. His mother took the pictures, so that, just in case the police beat him up when they questioned him (note how early in the investigation attention was focused on Damien), there would be proof of what he looked like before the interrogation. If he had "beaten [someone] real bad" on May 5th, like Jessie suggests, the marks on his hands and knuckles would have still been there on May 7th. If he had "beat 'em with a big ol' stick" on May 5th, again from a different one of Jessie's stories, the abrasions from holding the stick would still be there on May 7th.
In that above link, abstract 360-364 is a discussion of case law.
Sorry for the confusion. His statement begins in Abstract 219, about half way down the page. It continues through Abstract 225, just the very top of the page. The statement about the knife starts in Abstract 222 and is continued to be discussed throughout. He also discussed the profiling by the police of those with long hair and black clothes. This starts at the very bottom of Abstract 223 and continues on to Abstract 224. I may have been citing page numbers, which started with the table of contents and included all the small Roman numerals. It was a little confusing.
Thanks for the clarification, CR. The Joseph that posts on the findadeath forum is not the same as Joseph Dwyer. Dwyer is around Jason's age, and the other is older by 10-15 years. Also Dwyer supports Jason, and the other does not.
On another note, holding a stick would not necessarily cause abrasions or even splinters depending on the stick. The boys carried staffs, and it's usual to remove the bark from a staff. Even if said stick wasn't a staff, it could have been from a smooth barked tree. It would all depend on the source of the stick as whether or not it might impart abrasions.
I could be wrong, but I thought that the sticks that the WMPD collected as the ones used (according to Jessie's story) were rough tree limbs. They would cause abrasions.
scroll down to "Sticks"
Most are not rough barked. In some, the bark or portions of the outer bark have been removed most likely due to weathering. Others in photo 1 have had their bark removed, most likely by fire as they are charred which might make it look like the outside bark, but if you look at the length's edge, you'll see little in the way of undulations.
Some are too light to hit anyone with (photo 4 or 5 too tired to go back and look) as they'd break, and some are broken, both smaller and larger pieces.
So, bottom line, you don't think that those were the branches (or sticks) used? Of course, I don't think any sticks were used because I don't believe Jessie's story, but the sloppiness of the WMPD investigation just never ceases to amaze me! How one group of "policemen" can miss so much (they left Damien's trench coat in his trailer, for example) boggles the mind.:crazy:
I really couldn't say whether those were the sticks used or not. I wasn't there, and I didn't collect those sticks from the crime scene. WMPD did that.
The smaller sticks could have inflicted some of the gouging type wounds, but would not have been used to bash in the back of someone's skull. For the most part the sticks appear to be found wood, that which has been sloughed from trees. I only noted what appeared to be a couple of viable sapling limbs in those photos which still had their smooth bark attached, but were rough in nature by various attached, small knots and nodes.
Just to clarify one of my earlier posts, I do not believe the sticks in the photos would have necessarily caused abrasions to the users of said sticks, but would have inflicted abrasions on the victims.
However, you must agree that, if those sticks were used to inflict any of the injuries on the boys, there would be biological evidence on the sticks. To my recollection, none of the sticks collected have yielded biological evidence. So, either those sticks weren't the ones used (in which case, once again, the sloppy investigation of the WMPD is on display) or sticks were not used during the attack on the boys.
Multiple confessions. Many POST conviction.
How do you explain that CR? How do you explain him confessing after he was convicted, on the record, after his attorney BEGGED him not to? Why is he STILL confessing?
How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?
Why did they lie about their alibis? Why did Damien admit he lied about his alibi on the stand?
Why did Michael Carson testify to Baldwin's confession and pass a lie detector test?
Why did Damien fail his?
Why did Damien blow kisses to the murdered children's parents?
Why did Todd Moore see Damien in that area when they were searching for Michael?
To believe the wm3 are innocent is to believe in a conspiracy theory larger than has ever existed. it's ridiculous.
Why did Damien say he was "enjoying it" re: the spotlight/trial?
Why did Damien mutilate and kill a Great Dane?
This is an incident reported by someone seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. Other people who knew Damien at the time report that he was gentle with small children and animals. Therefore, the statement to which you refer is either an outright lie or an embellishment of some minor incident. I'm prone to believe it to be an outright lie.
This is news to me! What do you mean Todd saw Damien in the area they were searching? In the Woods? or was Damien in the vicinity of RRH?
please explain further. This is interesting. Thanks.
Separate names with a comma.