Steve Jones

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Mary456, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. Mary456

    Mary456 New Member

    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This case calls out for critical reading. Here's an example from Jessie's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

    Even one of the supporters of the investigation into satanic matters, former Assistant Probation Officer Steve Jones, has stated since his departure....that the satanic insinuations that characterized the case were an exaggeration and that he cannot, in retrospect, accurately attribute to Petitioner Baldwin any professed interest in or association with the occult or Satanism. Jones...now acknowledges that he does not believe that Baldwin was involved in the homicides.

    Baldwin's investigators have located Steve Jones who has made it abundantly clear to at least two investigators that he believes that he participated in a witch hunt that resulted in an injustice. (Declaration of Tom Quinn).


    Now, it is clearly stated that Baldwin's investigators have located Steve Jones. Why, then, is the declaration from Tom Quinn, Baldwin's P.I.?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Perhaps because Jones doesn't have the guts to give a declaration of his own. And perhaps because Jones' lawyer advised him not to attest to anything that could subject him to a future charge such as perjury.

    (I'm not saying Jones did or did not commit perjury, just that his lawyer probably doesn't want him giving depositions about "witch hunts.")

    Jones has been made to look like a complete idiot by this case, if not actually dishonest. I'd hide, too.
     
  4. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gitchell's Pasdar deposition makes him look like he has something to hide, too. I'm not saying that he does; I'm just saying that the depo makes him look shady, to say the least.

    Here's the link to Gitchell's deposition: http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/g_gitchell_depo.pdf
     
  5. justthinkin

    justthinkin New Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CR, I'm sitting here wondering how you've arrived at your determination that Gitchell presents as shady which is after all only your opinion.

    He strikes me as coming across very professionally, forth coming,earnest, and direct in his responses. At no time, did he balk in answering a question, nor was he ever antagonistic about a question or towards those doing the questioning.

    The man received clearance from the FBI to become an FBI agent at one time, and that speaks highly of Gitchell's character IMO.

    Certainly he cannot speak to investigative matters, and I don't believe the Pasdar attorneys expected him to. They can ask the questions, but no one behaving in a professional manner would be willing to disclose any information that might impede further investigation by those now responsible for the case or say anything that might possibly damage the state's case against the WM3.
     
  6. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Several times he seemed to be hesitant to admit that there could be new evidence in this case. He didn't want to say anything that would allow an attorney to point to a contradiction. He seems inordinately afraid that the slightest thing can tear down the case. If it's "an eleven," just what is he afraid of telling us? Just like back in '94 when Pam Hobbs wanted to have him look in another direction and he didn't want to do anything that would "mess up" the case, he just didn't seem forthcoming with information. I know that he retired shortly after the original trials concluded, but I just don't believe that he hasn't kept up with the case over the years. To me, it's like TH not being able to remember things about May 5, 1993. When something affects you personally, like Gitchell claims this case did, you would continue to follow it. Sorry, I just don't buy his "I don't know what's going on now" line.
     
  7. justthinkin

    justthinkin New Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't get that at all. He stated if new evidence was forthcoming it should be looked at, and pursued as far as any leads would take it.

    Look, the man said, he shouldn't have said that about the "eleven" business, himself. So why keep harping on it?
    It was a cocky mistake, and that's all it was, IMO. And it's come back to haunt him. But at some point, it just needs to be dropped because it's pointless to keep bringing it up. It serves nothing IMO beyond mere contention.

    As far as him keeping up with the case, he would not now be considered an insider by the WMPD, and any information they've acquired since Gitchell's leaving the force would be given out on a need to know basis. I don't believe he would fall into the category of "needs to know" anything at this point.

    Now if they, the WMPD choose to inform him of something, we aren't going to hear about it because it is privileged information, and would not come out until the evidentiary hearings, if it comes out at all.

    I can easily see why someone who had to deal with this case from the state's position would want to put it behind them once they felt the guilty parties had been convicted, and sent to prison.
    I doubt any of them could ever think about this case without the sight of those 3 little victims coming to light. This was a horrific crime, against defenseless children. It's not something anyone would want to hold on to or have to revisit unless new evidence came to light that required them to revisit the case. Gitchell is no longer employed by WMPD. While he might be required to give further testimony about the investigation while he was in charge, this case is now out of his hands. It is not up to him to pursue anything at this point.
     
  8. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, Gitchell, an adult, can say something "cocky" and we should just "drop" it but if Damien, a teen at the time, says something that is really just a "cocky" teen statement, it proves that he's a Satan-worshiping child-killer? As to your view of Gitchell's deposition as compared to mine, again just like two eye witnesses to a crime, different people see things differently. To me, he was acting like he didn't want to divulge everything he knew.
     
  9. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Saying you enjoy the notoriety of being a brutal child killer is not "cocky".
     
  10. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK. Let's call it "foolish" teenage behavior. My point remains the same. If you have ever worked closely with teens as I have, you would realize that they often say outlandish things for attention. Just as Gitchell stated that his statement was foolish, Damien has often said that his behavior during the trial was foolish. The difference is that, as an adult at the time and as a law enforcement official, Gitchell should be held to a higher standard than a teen who was obviously nervous because he was on trial for a murder that he did not commit.
     
  11. justthinkin

    justthinkin New Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The thing is, CR, you are demanding perfection, and that simply isn't possible when working with homo sapiens. People make mistakes. People say things they know they shouldn't have said in retrospect. Chit happens.

    OTOH, we have a convicted teen here who uttered numerous things that not only damaged his credibility, but helped to convict him, and he seemed to take delight in doing so. Was it stupid? Certainly! Had he made one stupid remark, I would think I would excuse it. I would bring it into question, but if it didn't impact the rest of what I learned about him, it would be relegated to an incidental occurrence.

    Instead there really is no excuse for the number of things Damien said. It's too much to be written off to teen rantings. If the excuse is given, and it was by him, that he was a teenager, and teenagers say stupid things, my answer to that is not when they are on trial for murder.
     
  12. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    jt,

    I disagree. It's entirely possible for a teen to say all of the things that Damien said as a part of "rantings" as you termed it. In my teaching career I dealt with numerous teens who said (and sometimes did) totally outrageous things. My own son, for instance, insisted on wearing heavy metal concert T-shirts to school every day. His father and I kept telling him that people would judge him by what he wore. He wouldn't listen and insisted that people shouldn't judge by appearances. He only realized how foolish his attitude was when he saw Paradise Lost and realized that, at least in part, Damien's wardrobe was responsible for an unjust death sentence. In Damien's case, I believe that because he is (and was then) of above average intelligence, the desire to shock was even greater. Therefore, the amount of shocking things that he said would be greater, too. I still go back to the total lack of physical evidence against the WM3. You shouldn't be able to convict three teens of murder and send one of them to death row just because they acted weird or because one of them, whose mental capabilities were limited, made some outlandish statements, none of which matched the evidence. I just can't believe that these guys did these murders and left absolutely no proof that they were ever there. Even serial killers usually leave something, and these guys were just teens. It just doesn't add up IMO.
     
  13. justthinkin

    justthinkin New Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where do you get the idea that Damien is above average in intelligence?

    Oddly, you mentioned that in another post either today or yesterday, and I have been searching for proof in the Callahan 500 because I believe that's where I saw that his IQ lay within the normal range. I'm still looking, but in the meantime, if you have some proof to support your statement, I would like to see it for myself. And I will do likewise for you.
     
  14. Mary456

    Mary456 New Member

    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must realize that this is hearsay. It would never be allowed in a courtroom, and for good reason.

    Let's say, in the 1993 trial, Fogelman wanted to put a witness - let's call him Joe - on the stand who would testify that he'd had a conversation with a man named David. David told him that Damien had confessed to the murders.

    David, who heard Damien's confession first-hand, doesn't have the guts to testify.

    Would you be comfortable with a judge who would allow Joe to testify about what he heard from David, who claims he heard it from Damien?
     
  15. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Damien's writings, primarily his later writings, to me, indicate a person of above average intelligence. Since intelligence remains fairly constant throughout life, if his writings now indicate above average intelligence, then he was of above average intelligence as a teen, too. Also, the kind of "acting out" that Damien did would indicate some sort of frustration level. I base that assessment on my experience working with teens. However, even if he is only of average intelligence, he did have a habit of saying shocking things, as is very evident in Exhibit 500. So, regardless of his intelligence level, his propensity to say shocking things is certainly above average. That doesn't make him a murderer. As I've said before, that just makes him a foolish teenager who likes to shock people.
     
  16. Mary456

    Mary456 New Member

    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Steve Jones did not testify in the trials, so he could not be charged with perjury.
     
  17. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He didn't say he testified. He said that it was possible that his attorney wouldn't let him testify so he wouldn't be opened up to a future charge of perjury.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice