why did Misskelly have a trial?

2 different things. He admits to participating but denies he is guilty of first degree murder. Hardcore criminals don't always do things that are logical or make sense. Like brutally murdering 3 little boys, for example.

He felt guilt and remorse, and so confessed (over and over). But his attorney would've likely told him to plead not guilty because he believed he could get an acquittal.

But don't forget, ultimately he confessed (over and over) AND plead guilty. So eventually, his confessions and his plea matched up.

To muddy the waters more but to be completely honest instead of only stating the part that supports one side, he plead guilty while maintaining his innocence and not admitting to the acts charged with but acknowledging that the prosecution would have enough evidence to make it more likely than not that a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying he only plead guilty while leaving out the part of an Alford Plea whereby he maintains his innocence is essentially doing the same thing that many complain about with the documentaries.
 
As to "confess[ing] (over and over)," again, many of us believe that the multiple statements were coerced, at least in some degree - that LE took advantage of a young man with a very low IQ because they were under pressure to solve the case.

The fist one was confessed. After that, he was on occasion trying to regurgitate what they got him to say. The problem is, that since it was a fabricated story and not a story of his own creation but LE's, he could never keep the story straight. If I remember correctly, there was also another truly troubling instance where they coerced him into "confessing" maybe at the courthouse or something. I'd have to go back and read it or my notes to be sure.
 
(especially when combined with all the other evidence)

Would love to hear.

unless you have chosen to cover your eyes and ears

Pot meet kettle.

I think that's actually a very unhealthy and even dangerous mindset for you to have. I am concerned for you actually.

You know what....that is a convincing argument. You have now swayed me. No. I take that back. Now I just think your just some (fill in the blank because it would probably get me banned) that does what many do when they run out of arguments....resort to personal attacks.

Here we go again. "His IQ is 72, which makes him highly susceptible to manipulation - especially by one in perceived authority over him."

I'm gonna bet I can manipulate you into getting you to say what I want you to.

In 3



2



1
 
So, you see there that Jessie’s IQ was in the 80’s? That makes him dumb, but certainly not retarded or even mildly retarded for that matter. Gary Ridgway the notorious Green River killer had an IQ in the 80’s and that certainly doesn’t make him retarded now does it? So the whole claim that Misskelley’s IQ was 72 should be viewed skeptically in light of these facts.

Can't speak for others but I don't stand for him being "retarded" or "borderline retarded". What I do stand for is the fact that he much more susceptible to coercion or manipulation. There is a reason why parental consent is needed for minors. Do you know why that is? Bottom line is you are subject to being manipulated and I'm hoping you would agree with me that Jessie was more subject to coercion and manipulation than you are. Can we agree on that?
 
Precisely. Supporters have always done that - take certain facts and twist them to fit their narrative, but then ignore those same facts when it points to their guilt. The most glaring one I've encountered is the "JM was so retarded that he was totally susceptible to coercion and was manipulated into confessing", but that those same facts simply do not apply when it came to his lawyers insisting and begging him to stop confessing. So according to that logic, he's only retarded and susceptible to coercion and manipulation when it's of the greatest detriment to him - but when it comes to saving his own *advertiser censored*, he's suddenly immune to such suggestion. Zero logic there - total denial in fact.

I certainly take into account the confession. One has to. It's a piece of evidence. Some just take the confession as the holy book of evidence. Please point me to the other evidence that points to the guilt of these three to the exclusion of others and I'll consider it. I haven't seen it. And don't quote DE's psychiatric records. Those aren't proof of guilt to the exclusion of others.
 
^ The fact that JB's uncle negatively corroborates JB's, DT's, and DE's alibi of being at his house to mow his lawn that day, for starters.

The fact that DT and DE said they were picked up from the laundrymat (which was a non-city block away from JB's Uncle's) by DE's parent, even though DE's parents knew where JB's Uncle's lived and JB's Uncle owned a phone for them to call for a ride. This is indicative of the fact that they knew they were spotted at the laundrymat, and had to admit to being there, even though it directly affects their main alibi of being at JB's Uncle's.

It's not just the multiple confessions. All of their alibis are just as bad as any of TH's or JMB's, if not worse.
 
Correct on the first point. Only correct on the second point if you give them any weight. You obviously do and that's fine. Question for you though, if you put so much weight on the confessions. What would you do if someone else came along and gave a confession? What if that person repeated that confession multiple times? What if that person was more mentally and behaviorally stable? You would be in a real quandary because you place so much weight on a confession. Based on your argument, you would be forced to accept both because we all know "no one confesses if they didn't do it" yet you literally couldn't accept both because the kids were only killed once.

Tell you what - as soon as someone comes along, and has all the other evidence that exists stacked against them that the WM3 have, and confesses over and over, while their defence attorney begs them not to, we'll chat. Until then, this "what if" isn't worth anyone's time.
 
Can't speak for others but I don't stand for him being "retarded" or "borderline retarded". What I do stand for is the fact that he much more susceptible to coercion or manipulation. There is a reason why parental consent is needed for minors. Do you know why that is? Bottom line is you are subject to being manipulated and I'm hoping you would agree with me that Jessie was more subject to coercion and manipulation than you are. Can we agree on that?

If he was so "much more susceptible to coercion or manipulation", why couldn't his own defence attorney "manipulate" him into STOP CONFESSING, over and over? Once again - you child murdering supporters twist the facts of the case to fit your narrative, and completely dismiss them when it glaringly points to the guilt of your fallen heroes.
 
If he was so "much more susceptible to coercion or manipulation", why couldn't his own defence attorney "manipulate" him into STOP CONFESSING, over and over? Once again - you child murdering supporters twist the facts of the case to fit your narrative, and completely dismiss them when it glaringly points to the guilt of your fallen heroes.

For argument's sake I'll use your language while not agreeing to it. He did manipulate him into denying it on multiple occasions.

And again with the name calling. If you can't differentiate between calling into question certain issues within an investigation/case versus supporting anyone in particular then I will reduce myself to name calling and say you are just an idiot incapable of critical thinking and make Jessie's IQ seem high.
 
If he was so "much more susceptible to coercion or manipulation", why couldn't his own defence attorney "manipulate" him into STOP CONFESSING, over and over? Once again - you child murdering supporters twist the facts of the case to fit your narrative, and completely dismiss them when it glaringly points to the guilt of your fallen heroes.

Because the state met with him off the books and promised that he could see daddy and susie again if he cooperated, and that only they could help him. Once more you twist the facts of the case to support your narrative and completely dismiss them when it points to to their innocence despite their flaws. Since he'd been convicted and was vulnerable it was child's play.

There's a reason even the people of West memphis no longer suspect them. There's a reason people accurately point out that michael Carson was a lying prison snitch, and why the "fibers" were junk.

Jessie couldn't describe the location, the inconsistencies outweighed the consistencies, and since the only expert the prosecution had (Frank Peretti) was a *advertiser censored* who openly lied his *advertiser censored* off when it suited him it's safe to say that Baden Ophoven Souviron DiMaio and even Spitz had more integrity than him.

An honest look at the transcripts show that Jessie was led in many ways or simply cobbled together a frankenstein story out of what had been said at trial

Law enforcement can be downright monstrous when they go bad and boy howdy were the WMPD and district attorney's down there corrupt.
 
In discussing the confession vs guilty/not guilty and the whole need for a trial, there's a huge elephant in the corner that, as far as I can see, no one has brought up so I'll jump into this heated debate and add my two cents. One of the most important things to keep in mind is if the State seeks the death penalty, with or without a confession, whether or not the confession is legit or coerced, and whether or not the confession was recanted, in Arkansas (and I know in many other states as well - probably all of them) by law ALL capital murder trials have to go through certain steps in the courts. The justice system requires certain legal processes and protocols must, by law, be followed. The only exception being if the defendant waives all rights to appeals and wants to go straight to the death chamber.

In the past 50 years in Arkansas (maybe even longer, but I've only been alive 50 years) there's only been one case where a defendant waived his right to appeals - Ronald Gene Simmons. A true monster amongst monsters, not to mention humans. There really are very few murderers who can even come close to comparing to him, even most serial killers aren't on the same sick level as this sadistic degenerate.

Just days before Christmas, Ronald Gene Simmons killed 14 members of his own family (including a daughter he had sexually molested and the child he had fathered with her). He first killed the family members that were in the family home (his wife, a son, and a young granddaughter) and then laid in wait for more family members to arrive at his home for the holiday. As they arrived he lured each of them, one at a time, to their death and then left the bodies all around the house for two days while he sat around drinking. He then went in to the nearby town of Russellville, killed two more people, and also injured two people.

He died by lethal injection only about 2 1/2 years later because he refused to appeal his death sentence and, in his request for an immediate death, he stated that anything less than death for him was "cruel and unusual punishment" (whatever - cruel and unusual is the only punishment that man deserved). I'll never forget watching the news and seeing him on the stand making that comment as he asked the court to grant his request to waive his appeals and basically kill him right then and there. However, I thought that the only justice that man deserved was to rot away in prison instead of getting the gift of a coward's easy way out via lethal injection.

If you're not familiar with this demon's murders, here's a link to his Wikipedia page. If anyone has ever doubted there's true, pure demonic evil in this world they'll change their mind immediately when they read what that man did to all the little children and babies - and they were all his own flesh and blood.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Gene_Simmons

I'm not trying to get completely off subject with information about another case, but I've lived in Arkansas my whole life (with the exception of about 2 years) and the Ronald Gene Simmons and West Memphis cases are still very disturbing subjects for many of us who lived in Arkansas at the time and were old enough at the time to fully understand the enormity of the horror in both cases.

I won't go into detail on my position with the WM3, but I will say my mind changed DRASTICALLY from when the three boys were first murdered to when the WM3 took their Alford pleas. Being friends with the man who was the State's AG at the time of the Alford pleas had a lot to do with my change in position. However, the most important thing is those three poor little boys deserve justice and because of crooked cops and people out to make a name and buck for themselves (many of whom faced their own justice one way or another) ruined any chance of those little boys having their real killer brought to justice. I've always dreaded that other children have died because LE missed their chance get this case right and get the right guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Because the state met with him off the books and promised that he could see daddy and susie again if he cooperated, and that only they could help him. Once more you twist the facts of the case to support your narrative and completely dismiss them when it points to to their innocence despite their flaws. Since he'd been convicted and was vulnerable it was child's play.

There's a reason even the people of West memphis no longer suspect them. There's a reason people accurately point out that michael Carson was a lying prison snitch, and why the "fibers" were junk.

Jessie couldn't describe the location, the inconsistencies outweighed the consistencies, and since the only expert the prosecution had (Frank Peretti) was a *advertiser censored* who openly lied his *advertiser censored* off when it suited him it's safe to say that Baden Ophoven Souviron DiMaio and even Spitz had more integrity than him.

An honest look at the transcripts show that Jessie was led in many ways or simply cobbled together a frankenstein story out of what had been said at trial

Law enforcement can be downright monstrous when they go bad and boy howdy were the WMPD and district attorney's down there corrupt.

(To the bolded) This is nothing but utter conjecture; you're aware of that, right? There is zero evidence that was ever said.
 
It's an educated guess; they tried to move him without informing his attorneys. The only explanation is that they wanted to meet with him without Stidham knowing. Jessie's confessions were full of holes even when he corrected them and the "he was drunk" just makes things even more impossible. Police can be downright monstrous at times (take the Madison Hobley case; Hobley was tortured by Jon Burge's men in a vain attempt to get him to confess to murdering his wife son and five others. Two months later it turned out their star witness was an arsonist himself and part of a gang that used arson as a "**** you" tactic. They bent over backwards to keep the witness out of trouble and KNOWINGLY let a mass murderer walk rather than admit they screwed up; in the Kevin Cooper case it's VERY plausible that Daniel Gregonis poured Cooper's blood onto a "depleted" stain and than poured someone else's blood into the vial to hide the deception, and that Judge Huff deliberately sabotaged any fair inquiry into possible corruption because she'd made up her mind Cooper was guilty beforehand.) Most cops are good. When they go bad they become ****ing monsters.

The entire area was a "good ol boys" network and since they sincerely believed him guilty they would have been all to willing to bend the rules.
 
^ That's fine, but nonetheless, it's just conjecture.
 
2 different things. He admits to participating but denies he is guilty of first degree murder. Hardcore criminals don't always do things that are logical or make sense. Like brutally murdering 3 little boys, for example.

He felt guilt and remorse, and so confessed (over and over). But his attorney would've likely told him to plead not guilty because he believed he could get an acquittal.

But don't forget, ultimately he confessed (over and over) AND plead guilty. So eventually, his confessions and his plea matched up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU7KzZY5PWg

He didn't get ANY Details right aside from minor **** that was easily gained through his trial law enforcement or the paper. He couldn't describe the injuries, he made a rape that never happened, he made a beating that never happned, he made up drowning that never happened, knife wounds that never happened, and bleeding out that never happened.

Jessie's confessions are so utterly ridiculous you'd have to be moron to take them seriously.
 
Precisely. Supporters have always done that - take certain facts and twist them to fit their narrative, but then ignore those same facts when it points to their guilt. The most glaring one I've encountered is the "JM was so retarded that he was totally susceptible to coercion and was manipulated into confessing", but that those same facts simply do not apply when it came to his lawyers insisting and begging him to stop confessing. So according to that logic, he's only retarded and susceptible to coercion and manipulation when it's of the greatest detriment to him - but when it comes to saving his own *advertiser censored*, he's suddenly immune to such suggestion. Zero logic there - total denial in fact.

Don't be an idiot. You're strawmanning the arguments. Firstly he DIDN'T keep confessing He actually stopped for a good long while. Secondly if they convinced him his lawyers COULDN'T help him it would be pathetically easy.

I swear to god Nons are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. They're not honoring Stevie Michael or Chris. They're *advertiser censored* on they're graves (just like most victims rights advocates)
 
For argument's sake I'll use your language while not agreeing to it. He did manipulate him into denying it on multiple occasions.

And again with the name calling. If you can't differentiate between calling into question certain issues within an investigation/case versus supporting anyone in particular then I will reduce myself to name calling and say you are just an idiot incapable of critical thinking and make Jessie's IQ seem high.

Facts are hard. And hey - at least own that you support them. Your convictions may be twisted, but you should stand by them nonetheless.
 
He didn't get ANY Details right aside from minor **** that was easily gained through his trial law enforcement or the paper. He couldn't describe the injuries, he made a rape that never happened, he made a beating that never happned, he made up drowning that never happened, knife wounds that never happened, and bleeding out that never happened.

Jessie's confessions are so utterly ridiculous you'd have to be moron to take them seriously.

Wow, everything about this post is completely false -- especially the bolded parts.

Just going off of the first confession (out of the multiple confessions that he gave police), Jessie got all the injuries right, actually. All 3 boys were beaten. He said that MM was beaten and never mentioned anything else ever happening to him, which was true. He mentioned that CB, in particular, was cut in his private area; and he mentioned that one of the boys was cut in the face, which was true. Also, two of the victims official COD was drowning, so to say that "never happened" or that the knife wounds "never happened" is false.

Newsflash: even in the weak theory of animal predation, bleeding out would have to had occurred; and there was no blood found at the crime scene all the same, even in this weak theory. So that's a completely moot point.

For the 50th time: there were things JM got wrong, yes, but to insist that he got "nothing" right (even in the 1st confession, which is probably the weakest out of all the confessions, as he admitted to purposefully falsifying certain elements in order to diminish his own role and throw off police) is completely and utterly false.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
1,095
Total visitors
1,177

Forum statistics

Threads
589,167
Messages
17,915,096
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top