Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed

17891113

Comments

  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Blockhead wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    According to the Defense's press conference in 2007... http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/press_conference.html

    Cigarette Thought To Have Been Smoked By Terry Hobbs:
    - Do not exclude the cigarette smoker as the source of a ligature hair on Moore.
    - About 0.12% of the population could be the source of the cigarette butt DNA.
    - About 1.5% of the population could be the source of the ligature hair

    Results from SERI Test of Cheek Swabs from David Jacoby and Cigarette Butt Thought to Have Been Smoked by Him:
    - DNA test results from these two samples are the same and do not exclude the cigarette smoker as the source of the tree stump hair
    - About 3% of the population could be the source of the cigarette butt DNA
    - About 7% of the population could be the source of the tree stump hair


    So, as you can see, it's not even definite that the alleged Hobbs (could belong to 1.5% of the population) and Jacoby (could belong to 7% of the population) hairs are from Hobbs or Jacoby...

    But it is definite that NONE of the DNA evidence belonged to any of the three defendants.

    1.5% of the population were not in the area of the crime scene at that time. But Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby were in the vicinity.
    So how does DNA found at or near the crime scene, not tied to the convicted, lead to the conclusion that they did not commit the crime? This I will never understand. Are we to throw out all of the evidence pointing toward their guilt, to consider that someone else's DNA was also found in the vicinity? Secondary transfer, the fact that other people may have been in that spot roaming around before the crime or during the search, or after etc. all account for that theory...

    1. It's not just one piece of all the crime scene DNA that is not tied to the defendants. It's ALL the DNA found at the crime scene that is NOT tied to the defendants. If one hair can make it all the way from Terry Hobbs's house, to the crime scene, and into ANOTHER boy's knot, how can three people commit such a violent crime without at least one of them leaving one spec of DNA evidence? That's extremely unlikely.

    2. All of WHAT "evidence pointing toward their guilt"?? And why are you so willing to disregard evidence that points to someone else's guilt while holding so tightly onto the evidence you claim to have against the WM3? If you think evidence should be disregarded for Terry Hobbs just because there's a reasonable doubt as to whether it proves he is the killer, shouldn't you use the same rules when examining the evidence against the WM3?

    3. "Someone else's DNA was ALSO found in the vicinity"? There you go again trying to imply something that's not true. The suggestion with the use of this word is that there WAS DNA from the WM3 found in the vicinity. You're also downplaying the DNA evidence that points to Terry Hobbs by saying it was "in the vicinity" of the crime. It was INSIDE THE KNOT! That's a hell of a lot closer than just "in the vicinity". But your presentation of the facts isn't biased at all! :roll:
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    :roll: How many confessions does jesse have to make? Even after conviction...
    :roll: Where were they during the murders. THey lied/fabricated about all their alibis and changed their stories (damien 7 times)

    The confessions were a sham. What occurred before the recorded segments of the so-called 'confessions'? Why were these parts of the police interrogation not recorded, or deleted?

    You don't know, do you?

    Jessie Misskelley simply repeated what the police already knew. And everything points towards the police having used suggestion, coercion, and intimidation to force him to confess.

    But then you don't care about any of this because it doesn't fit your agenda.

    Like someone mentioned above, this is a great troll job.

    We know that Jessie was very susceptible to suggestion. The doc who evaluated him completely made up a story about a crime that never happened and had Jessie confessing to it within 30 minutes!! (This is according to one of the official documents Blockhead posted - except he left that part out of the quote for his post.)

    We know that the coercive techniques used by the police during interrogation crossed the line. The Supreme Court of Arkansas said they could not condone all of the techniques used. (Per the Supreme Court document I posted.)

    And we know that this confession - obtained without proper consent, from a kid with a borderline retarded IQ who is highly susceptible to suggestion, through means of interrogation that crossed the line of what is acceptable to the state - is the ONLY piece of "evidence" against him. (This according to the document I posted by the state Supreme Court when confirming his conviction.)
  • Who's going to be sporting their "Jail the WM3" shirts at PJ20? Anyone? :lol:

    I can't believe this thread is still going the way it is.


    Do we all agree that it is asinine and ridiculous to have the ability to Plead GUILTY to murder in order to be RELEASED from jail???? Please?????
    hippiemom = goodness
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    edited September 2011
    Blockhead wrote:
    why were they found guilty?

    1. The jury was tampered with.
    2. They didn't test the DNA evidence.
    3. The judge was biased.
    4. The jury wasn't allowed to hear all the defense evidence.
    5. The jury had already heard inadmissible prosecution evidence.

    Haven't some of the jurors changed their minds?
    Post edited by _ on
  • LizardLizard So CalPosts: 11,945
    Who's going to be sporting their "Jail the WM3" shirts at PJ20? Anyone? :lol:

    I can't believe this thread is still going the way it is.
    :lol: :lol:
    Can you imagine someone in the front row wearing that???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Is it over yet? #ITMFA
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Blockhead wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead, if all of the sexual activity described by Jessie really did take place in the woods, and if the three boys were beaten to a pulp and one castrated, then why was ZERO DNA found at the scene belonging to any of the three convicted boys?


    Whoops! Sorry! Did I forget to mention that Jessie 'confessed' three times????!!! :o
    You do realize what he described matched everything...

    That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.
    Blockhead wrote:
    Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...

    See, again you're misleading. It's not true that ZERO DNA was found. Plenty of DNA was found - but zero DNA was found to match ANY of the defendants. Are you saying this miracle water selectively removed all DNA from the defendants while leaving other DNA behind??
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    _ wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    :roll: How many confessions does jesse have to make? Even after conviction...
    :roll: Where were they during the murders. THey lied/fabricated about all their alibis and changed their stories (damien 7 times)

    The confessions were a sham. What occurred before the recorded segments of the so-called 'confessions'? Why were these parts of the police interrogation not recorded, or deleted?

    You don't know, do you?

    Jessie Misskelley simply repeated what the police already knew. And everything points towards the police having used suggestion, coercion, and intimidation to force him to confess.

    But then you don't care about any of this because it doesn't fit your agenda.

    Like someone mentioned above, this is a great troll job.

    We know that Jessie was very susceptible to suggestion. The doc who evaluated him completely made up a story about a crime that never happened and had Jessie confessing to it within 30 minutes!! (This is according to one of the official documents Blockhead posted - except he left that part out of the quote for his post.)

    We know that the coercive techniques used by the police during interrogation crossed the line. The Supreme Court of Arkansas said they could not condone all of the techniques used. (Per the Supreme Court document I posted.)

    And we know that this confession - obtained without proper consent, from a kid with a borderline retarded IQ who is highly susceptible to suggestion, through means of interrogation that crossed the line of what is acceptable to the state - is the ONLY piece of "evidence" against him. (This according to the document I posted by the state Supreme Court when confirming his conviction.)
    Then show me where... Please linke and quote where he was coerced?
    And why do you keep talking about the 1st confession, We have clearly moved beyond that, and I have already admitted that he lied, and also provided evidence as to why he lied and admitted it.
    Now you know he made more than ONE confession right...
    Your losing steam...
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Blockhead wrote:
    _ wrote:
    We know that Jessie was very susceptible to suggestion. The doc who evaluated him completely made up a story about a crime that never happened and had Jessie confessing to it within 30 minutes!! (This is according to one of the official documents Blockhead posted - except he left that part out of the quote for his post.)

    We know that the coercive techniques used by the police during interrogation crossed the line. The Supreme Court of Arkansas said they could not condone all of the techniques used. (Per the Supreme Court document I posted.)

    And we know that this confession - obtained without proper consent, from a kid with a borderline retarded IQ who is highly susceptible to suggestion, through means of interrogation that crossed the line of what is acceptable to the state - is the ONLY piece of "evidence" against him. (This according to the document I posted by the state Supreme Court when confirming his conviction.)
    Then show me where... Please linke and quote where he was coerced?
    And why do you keep talking about the 1st confession, We have clearly moved beyond that, and I have already admitted that he lied, and also provided evidence as to why he lied and admitted it.
    Now you know he made more than ONE confession right...
    Your losing steam...

    So you HAVEN'T actually read the court documents then?? Maybe you should actually read the official files before acting like you know what you're talking about. (I read that on a message board once - or repeatedly, ad nauseum.)

    "the supreme court observed, however, that the tactic of playing a tape recording of a boy's voice saying "Nobody knows what happened but me" came perilously close to psychological overbearing, and the court could not condone its use"
    http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html

    We have not moved beyond the first confession. You admitted he lied about some parts of the confession, but you have not admitted that the confession itself was untrue. The reason given for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe Jessie couldn't understand that it made no sense given his low mental capacity, but you should be able to understand that.

    Yes, I know he made more than one confession. And you still haven't read the documents explaining false confessions.

    You're losing steam.
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    _ wrote:
    That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.
    Blockhead wrote:
    Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...

    See, again you're misleading. It's not true that ZERO DNA was found. Plenty of DNA was found - but zero DNA was found to match ANY of the defendants. Are you saying this miracle water selectively removed all DNA from the defendants while leaving other DNA behind??
    ? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind.
    Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
    Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...

    Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
    We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
    So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
    So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 16,183
    sisyphus.jpg
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    _ wrote:
    So you HAVEN'T actually read the court documents then?? Maybe you should actually read the official files before acting like you know what you're talking about. (I read that on a message board once - or repeatedly, ad nauseum.)

    "the supreme court observed, however, that the tactic of playing a tape recording of a boy's voice saying "Nobody knows what happened but me" came perilously close to psychological overbearing, and the court could not condone its use"
    http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html

    We have not moved beyond the first confession. You admitted he lied about some parts of the confession, but you have not admitted that the confession itself was untrue. The reason given for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe Jessie couldn't understand that it made no sense given his low mental capacity, but you should be able to understand that.

    Yes, I know he made more than one confession. And you still haven't read the documents explaining false confessions.

    You're losing steam.
    The reason for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Well I am only repeating what JESSE himself said in testimony... I am not why you are asking me...
    Its not a false confession... You would have a leg to stand on if he only confessed once, but...

    Jessie MissKelley first statement. Why would Jessie give a false statement?


    Buddy Lucas statement. Why would Buddy Lucas give a statement to police that Jessie, Damien and Jason assaulted some boys and he was in trouble?


    Jessie confessing to his own attorney for months. What reason would Jessie have for confessing to his lawyer?


    Jessie's confession on tape to his lawyer swearing on the bible he was involved and tells about the whisky bottle. Why would Jessie confess to something after conviction and admit to more involvement than previously accused?

    Jessie confesses to prosecutors. What was Jessie's reason for confessing to prosecutors?
  • dasvidanadasvidana Grand Junction COPosts: 1,313
    Blockhead,

    Your real name ins't Terry Hobbs, is it? If it is, that would explain your efforts to convince others that the WM3 are actually guilty.
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • The Waiting Trophy ManThe Waiting Trophy Man Niagara region, Ontario, CanadaPosts: 12,158
    _ wrote:

    That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.

    Exactly. I thought of this this afternoon, too. Initially, the police believed that the kids were sexually abused.

    I find it hard to believe that Jessie would come up with that stuff on his own without being coerced.

    As it turns out, there was no rape. Oops!
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Blockhead wrote:
    ? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind.
    Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
    Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...

    Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
    We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
    So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
    So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...

    Talking of cherry=picking, this is exactly what you've been doing ever since this thread began. Cherry-picking, lying, and getting all giddy and angry when things don't go your way.

    The confessions were a sham.
    Absolutely no DNA was found at the scene of the crime matching any of the three defendants, despite the 3 murdered boys allegedly having been sexually abused before being murdered and deprived of massive amounts of blood.
    You're claiming that the blood, and other bodily fluids, was simply washed off in the water is PATHETIC.

    You don't know what you're talking about.


    And there is ZERO evidence linking any of the three defendants to this crime.

    You're just stewing in your own juices.
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2011
    Blockhead wrote:
    Jessie confessing to his own attorney for months. What reason would Jessie have for confessing to his lawyer?


    Jessie's confession on tape to his lawyer swearing on the bible he was involved and tells about the whisky bottle. Why would Jessie confess to something after conviction and admit to more involvement than previously accused?

    Jessie confesses to prosecutors. What was Jessie's reason for confessing to prosecutors?




    Jessie's third confession, after having been convicted, still, for the most part, the important part, the crime itself, did not agree with the evidence:



    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 was going to 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 initial exchange where it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that, by his belligerent responses, Jessie has come to distrust his attorneys, especially Stidham.

    The prosecution had been questioning Jessie while he was incarcerated, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They 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 convinced 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 dad, his dad 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.

    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?

    Because of his limited mental abilities, Jessie is easily manipulated. After his conviction, LE worked on Jessie, attempting to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They had him convinced that his attorneys were not there to help him. There were only two post conviction statements. The first was in the car on the way to prison. This type of statement is very common in someone of Jessie's IQ. It was an attempt to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear so he (Jessie) could go home. The second post conviction statement, the one made over the objection of his attorneys, was, as I said before, after LE had been talking to Jessie, without notifying his attorneys, in an attempt to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. As you probably know, Jessie did not testify against Damien and Jason because he simply couldn't continue telling his false story any longer. He has not "continued to confess." He has maintained his innocence since approximately one month after his conviction.

    How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?

    No forensic evidence has connected the Evan Williams bottle to any of the three convicted young men. There is nothing to explain. Unless some forensic evidence connecting Jessie or one of the other teens to the bottle is produced, the fact that an Evan Williams bottle was found (after searching under several overpasses) proves nothing. It is a common brand used by many homeless people, and the fact that Jessie mentioned drinking that brand and discarding a bottle in the area is only relevant if the bottle found can be forensically linked to him.





    Why does anyone give a false confession?

    Oh, I forgot...you don't care.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 15,709
    Huh, that horse is still twitching. Who'd have thunk it.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    edited September 2011
    Blockhead wrote:
    _ wrote:
    That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.
    Blockhead wrote:
    Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...

    See, again you're misleading. It's not true that ZERO DNA was found. Plenty of DNA was found - but zero DNA was found to match ANY of the defendants. Are you saying this miracle water selectively removed all DNA from the defendants while leaving other DNA behind??
    ? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind.
    Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
    Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...

    Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
    We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
    So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
    So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...

    Wow, getting kind of testy, huh? No need for that. Now just put on your thinking cap, pull up your big boy pants, and let's run through this again:

    As I've said MANY times, I have read all the confessions. I have also read stuff you seem to have skipped over: like the accounts of what ACTUALLY happened. You posted above (a few select) quotes from a confession. One of the quotes described how the boys were sodomized. You said Jessie "described the injuries accurately" & later you said, "You do realize what he described matched everything." I said that is a lie. I explained why it's a lie, but I'll explain it again: It is not true (=lie) that what he described matched everything because the boys were not sodomized & he said they were. Get it?

    We both know your choice of words on the DNA was misleading, but whatever. We also both know that zero DNA was found to match the defendants. That fact doesn't change just because not all of it was tested. (If you're so sure the untested DNA is theirs, maybe you should contribute some money to pay for the DNA testing.) And you still haven't explained this miracle water that washes away only selective DNA.
    Post edited by _ on
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Blockhead wrote:
    _ wrote:
    So you HAVEN'T actually read the court documents then?? Maybe you should actually read the official files before acting like you know what you're talking about. (I read that on a message board once - or repeatedly, ad nauseum.)

    "the supreme court observed, however, that the tactic of playing a tape recording of a boy's voice saying "Nobody knows what happened but me" came perilously close to psychological overbearing, and the court could not condone its use"
    http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html

    We have not moved beyond the first confession. You admitted he lied about some parts of the confession, but you have not admitted that the confession itself was untrue. The reason given for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe Jessie couldn't understand that it made no sense given his low mental capacity, but you should be able to understand that.

    Yes, I know he made more than one confession. And you still haven't read the documents explaining false confessions.

    You're losing steam.
    The reason for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Well I am only repeating what JESSE himself said in testimony... I am not why you are asking me...
    Its not a false confession... You would have a leg to stand on if he only confessed once, but...

    Jessie MissKelley first statement. Why would Jessie give a false statement?


    Buddy Lucas statement. Why would Buddy Lucas give a statement to police that Jessie, Damien and Jason assaulted some boys and he was in trouble?


    Jessie confessing to his own attorney for months. What reason would Jessie have for confessing to his lawyer?


    Jessie's confession on tape to his lawyer swearing on the bible he was involved and tells about the whisky bottle. Why would Jessie confess to something after conviction and admit to more involvement than previously accused?

    Jessie confesses to prosecutors. What was Jessie's reason for confessing to prosecutors?

    Developmentally delayed people do strange things that don't make sense, especially when under stress.

    How about you explain why he confessed to another crime that didn't even happen??
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    ? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind.
    Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
    Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...

    Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
    We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
    So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
    So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...

    Talking of cherry=picking, this is exactly what you've been doing ever since this thread began. Cherry-picking, lying, and getting all giddy and angry when things don't go your way.

    The confessions were a sham.
    Absolutely no DNA was found at the scene of the crime matching any of the three defendants, despite the 3 murdered boys allegedly having been sexually abused before being murdered and deprived of massive amounts of blood.
    You're claiming that the blood, and other bodily fluids, was simply washed off in the water is PATHETIC.

    You don't know what you're talking about.


    And there is ZERO evidence linking any of the three defendants to this crime.

    You're just stewing in your own juices.

    Re: the lack of blood: obviously Blockhead has never witnessed the scene of a violent crime. That's good for his emotional well-being, but not so good for his critical thinking skills.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Here's another question for you Blockhead:

    How long was the police interrogation of Jessie Misskelley? Only the last 45 minutes of the interrogation were actually recorded.
    How long was the total interrogation?
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jessie Misskelley's 'confessions':

    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... ess_6.html

    Dan Stidham was able to secure the expert testimonies of Dr Richard Ofshe and Warren Homes. Dr Ofshe, a Pulitzer Prize winning social psychologist and an expert on false and coerced confessions, believed after reading the confession, listening to the tape and interviewing Jessie Misskelley, that Jessie’s confession was a coerced compliant and false confession. The reasons given for this conclusion were:

    Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie’s identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
    That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
    That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
    That many areas of Jessie’s confession were not supported by the facts.


    Examples of incorrect information in Jason's "confession:"

    Jessie stated that the victims and Jason Baldwin were not at school when in fact they were proven to have been in attendance
    Jessie stated that the victims were bound with rope when in fact they were bound with their own shoelaces
    Jessie stated that one boy was choked with a stick when the medical examiners report stated that there was no evidence of strangulation
    Jessie stated that the boys were anally raped when in fact the medical examiner had found no evidence of this occurring
    Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.


    Dr Ofshe was not permitted to state all of his opinion during the trial as Judge Burnett had previously ruled that Jessie’s confession had been voluntary and Ofshe’s testimony in this regard would directly contradict the court’s previous ruling. Burnett also stated that such a testimony would give an expert witness the power to determine whether the accused was guilty or innocent which was solely the jury’s domain. Finally, the jury only heard that Ofshe had a lot of experience with coerced confessions and it was possible for police to obtain a confession from someone who was in fact innocent, anything more specific was not allowed.

    Warren Holmes, an expert in lie detection testing and interrogation who has studied and worked in this field for over thirty years, agreed to testify for the defense after he was approached by Daniel Stidham, despite the knowledge that he would not be paid for his services and only his expenses would be reimbursed.

    At a hearing prior to the trial, Judge Burnett ruled that Warren Holmes could not testify regarding the polygraph examination itself. As polygraph test results are not admissible evidence he would only allow Holmes to testify to his experience and qualifications and to give an analyses of the interview techniques used during Jessie Misskelley’s interrogation.

    When Holmes analysed the polygraph test conducted by the WMPD on Jessie Misskelley he found that Jessie’s responses to the questions relating to the murders indicated that Jessie was truthful in his answers and in fact did not have any knowledge of them. The WMPD interrogating officers’ statement to Jessie that he had in fact lied, indicated that they had not conducted or interpreted the results of the tests properly. The result of being informed that he was lying would have greatly contributed to Jessie’s sense of helplessness in the situation making him more likely to comply with the demand for a confession by the police.

    According to Holmes there are a number of indicators which will validate to the investigators that a suspect’s confession is true.

    In a true confession the suspect will often give the police information about the crime that the police do not already know.
    If a confession is true the suspect gives information that fits with the real evidence of the crime.
    A true confession is usually given in a narrative form including many incidental details about the situation surrounding the crime which can be corroborated by police later
    In a true confession, if the investigators make an incorrect supposition about the crime, the suspect will correct them.
    In a true confession, there is no need to correct the suspect for contradictions in their story.
    In a true confession there is no need for coaching or leading questions in order to elicit information.

    Homes believed that there were many instances in Jessie’s confession where these criteria were not met. He was especially concerned that Jessie was wrong about the times and the type of ligatures used. Both of these factors should have meant a great deal to him. Nor does Jessie mention anything about his feelings at the time of the crimes or afterwards, or talk about the things that were said by himself, the other perpetrators or the victims. Jessie’s confession was elicited by a series of highly suggestive questions by the interrogating officers and was not given in a narrative form.

    The testimony of these two witnesses was the strongest evidence that the defense had to refute the prosecution’s case which was built solely upon the weight of Jessie’s confession. Without this expert opinion, Jessie’s case was severely hampered.
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html



    That's over 12 hours.


    Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.


    Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • The Waiting Trophy ManThe Waiting Trophy Man Niagara region, Ontario, CanadaPosts: 12,158
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html



    That's over 12 hours.


    Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.


    Nothing amiss there then! :roll:

    Not to mention he didn't have legal representation the entire time.
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Blockhead, you started another thread, which was subsequently closed, wherein you accused Eddie Vedder of lying.

    You accused him of lying because in a playbill you received at a 2009 concert were 'contained...3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)'.

    It's been shown now that YOU were lying about Jessie's I.Q.

    What's your response to that?


    Secondly, YOU lied about the time Misskelley spent under police interrogation, and his subsequent confession, not being 12 hours.


    What's your response to that?


    And lastly, what's this 'motive' that you speak of? What 'motive' was mentioned in the playbill, and how does it suggest that Eddie Vedder is a liar?
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead, you started another thread, which was subsequently closed, wherein you accused Eddie Vedder of lying.

    You accused him of lying because in a playbill you received at a 2009 concert were 'contained...3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)'.

    It's been shown now that YOU were lying about Jessie's I.Q.

    What's your response to that?


    Secondly, YOU lied about the time Misskelley spent under police interrogation, and his subsequent confession, not being 12 hours.


    What's your response to that?


    And lastly, what's this 'motive' that you speak of? What 'motive' was mentioned in the playbill, and how does it suggest that Eddie Vedder is a liar?

    I think the 3rd thing he quoted that Eddie "lied" about had something to do with the playbill saying Damien had dark hair. Can you believe the NERVE of Eddie Vedder?? He thinks that just because he's a famous musician he possesses the ability to assess the color of Damien's hair! ;)
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    Byrnzie wrote:



    Jessie's third confession, after having been convicted, still, for the most part, the important part, the crime itself, did not agree with the evidence:



    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 was going to 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 initial exchange where it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that, by his belligerent responses, Jessie has come to distrust his attorneys, especially Stidham.

    The prosecution had been questioning Jessie while he was incarcerated, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They 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 convinced 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 dad, his dad 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.

    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?

    Because of his limited mental abilities, Jessie is easily manipulated. After his conviction, LE worked on Jessie, attempting to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They had him convinced that his attorneys were not there to help him. There were only two post conviction statements. The first was in the car on the way to prison. This type of statement is very common in someone of Jessie's IQ. It was an attempt to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear so he (Jessie) could go home. The second post conviction statement, the one made over the objection of his attorneys, was, as I said before, after LE had been talking to Jessie, without notifying his attorneys, in an attempt to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. As you probably know, Jessie did not testify against Damien and Jason because he simply couldn't continue telling his false story any longer. He has not "continued to confess." He has maintained his innocence since approximately one month after his conviction.

    How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?

    No forensic evidence has connected the Evan Williams bottle to any of the three convicted young men. There is nothing to explain. Unless some forensic evidence connecting Jessie or one of the other teens to the bottle is produced, the fact that an Evan Williams bottle was found (after searching under several overpasses) proves nothing. It is a common brand used by many homeless people, and the fact that Jessie mentioned drinking that brand and discarding a bottle in the area is only relevant if the bottle found can be forensically linked to him.





    Why does anyone give a false confession?

    Oh, I forgot...you don't care.
    The day before the murders, Tuesday May 4, 1993, Jason Baldwin traded 3 t shirts for a curved “throwing” knife, and a mountain climbing ice pick. On Friday May 8, 1993 Jason had his little brother Matthew return those items, he had kept hidden under his bed for the last few days, claiming “somebody was going to accuse him of using them.”



    On May 11, 1993 Billy and Kenny Newell turned the weapons over to WMPD
    http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/the- ... should-be/
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html



    That's over 12 hours.


    Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.


    Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
    WOW, you posted a link and you didn't even read it.
    He was not in police custoday until 10AM.
    He was interrogated after 5pm.
    I don't know about you but that is not 12 hours and Its not 8 hours...
    Maybe you should read what you actually post.
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html



    That's over 12 hours.


    Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.


    Nothing amiss there then! :roll:

    Not to mention he didn't have legal representation the entire time.
    Maybe you should read how many times he was read it rights... And Jesse was not stranger to the law/rights/lawyers...
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Jessie Misskelley's 'confessions':

    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... ess_6.html

    Dan Stidham was able to secure the expert testimonies of Dr Richard Ofshe and Warren Homes. Dr Ofshe, a Pulitzer Prize winning social psychologist and an expert on false and coerced confessions, believed after reading the confession, listening to the tape and interviewing Jessie Misskelley, that Jessie’s confession was a coerced compliant and false confession. The reasons given for this conclusion were:

    Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie’s identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
    That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
    That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
    That many areas of Jessie’s confession were not supported by the facts.


    Examples of incorrect information in Jason's "confession:"

    Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.[/b]

    Dr Ofshe was not permitted to state all of his opinion during the trial as Judge Burnett had previously ruled that Jessie’s confession had been voluntary and Ofshe’s testimony in this regard would directly contradict the court’s previous ruling. Burnett also stated that such a testimony would give an expert witness the power to determine whether the accused was guilty or innocent which was solely the jury’s domain. Finally, the jury only heard that Ofshe had a lot of experience with coerced confessions and it was possible for police to obtain a confession from someone who was in fact innocent, anything more specific was not allowed.

    Warren Holmes, an expert in lie detection testing and interrogation who has studied and worked in this field for over thirty years, agreed to testify for the defense after he was approached by Daniel Stidham, despite the knowledge that he would not be paid for his services and only his expenses would be reimbursed.

    At a hearing prior to the trial, Judge Burnett ruled that Warren Holmes could not testify regarding the polygraph examination itself. As polygraph test results are not admissible evidence he would only allow Holmes to testify to his experience and qualifications and to give an analyses of the interview techniques used during Jessie Misskelley’s interrogation.

    When Holmes analysed the polygraph test conducted by the WMPD on Jessie Misskelley he found that Jessie’s responses to the questions relating to the murders indicated that Jessie was truthful in his answers and in fact did not have any knowledge of them. The WMPD interrogating officers’ statement to Jessie that he had in fact lied, indicated that they had not conducted or interpreted the results of the tests properly. The result of being informed that he was lying would have greatly contributed to Jessie’s sense of helplessness in the situation making him more likely to comply with the demand for a confession by the police.

    According to Holmes there are a number of indicators which will validate to the investigators that a suspect’s confession is true.

    In a true confession the suspect will often give the police information about the crime that the police do not already know.
    If a confession is true the suspect gives information that fits with the real evidence of the crime.
    A true confession is usually given in a narrative form including many incidental details about the situation surrounding the crime which can be corroborated by police later
    In a true confession, if the investigators make an incorrect supposition about the crime, the suspect will correct them.
    In a true confession, there is no need to correct the suspect for contradictions in their story.
    In a true confession there is no need for coaching or leading questions in order to elicit information.

    Homes believed that there were many instances in Jessie’s confession where these criteria were not met. He was especially concerned that Jessie was wrong about the times and the type of ligatures used. Both of these factors should have meant a great deal to him. Nor does Jessie mention anything about his feelings at the time of the crimes or afterwards, or talk about the things that were said by himself, the other perpetrators or the victims. Jessie’s confession was elicited by a series of highly suggestive questions by the interrogating officers and was not given in a narrative form.

    The testimony of these two witnesses was the strongest evidence that the defense had to refute the prosecution’s case which was built solely upon the weight of Jessie’s confession. Without this expert opinion, Jessie’s case was severely hampered.
    ummm. You do realize that this is a false statement right? they did luminol tests. And found plenty...
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,515
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Blockhead, you started another thread, which was subsequently closed, wherein you accused Eddie Vedder of lying.

    You accused him of lying because in a playbill you received at a 2009 concert were 'contained...3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)'.

    It's been shown now that YOU were lying about Jessie's I.Q.

    What's your response to that?


    Secondly, YOU lied about the time Misskelley spent under police interrogation, and his subsequent confession, not being 12 hours.


    What's your response to that?


    And lastly, what's this 'motive' that you speak of? What 'motive' was mentioned in the playbill, and how does it suggest that Eddie Vedder is a liar?
    the quote from the Playbill says:
    "Came after 12 hours of interrogation" Please re-read your link. Explain to me how 10am to 5pm is 12 hours.
    It is a blantant lie...

    My response about his iq is, I was not lying, you don't seem to understand IQ tests. Let me break it down for you:

    The Wechsler tests are much more complicated than looking at composite scores. You can not make clinical interpretations from those composites unless they are ALL consistent with one another.

    All of these subtest likely would not have been used. A standard battery consists of 10 subtests
    Wechsler (WAIS-IV) now splits the subtests into 4 composites. Verbal, Performance, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. This was changed because research indicated that the old test was not properly placing subtests within the correct composites. So things like attention, concentration, and executive functioning were being measured under the verbal composite improperly. So if an individual has ADHD or learning disabilities, the Verbal score is invalid. Therefore the FSIQ is also invalid. You must use a General Abilities Index or look at the subtests themselves and look for strengths and weaknesses in order to describe abilities separately and not as a whole.

    Standard
    Verbal: Similarities, Vocabulary, Information
    Perceptual: Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Visual Puzzles
    Working Memory: Arithmetic, Digit Span
    Processing Speed: Coding, Symbol Search

    The discrepancy in his scores likely indicate a neurological deficit, such as learning disability or language deficit. This only means that he may have difficulty with academic achievement and academic language... has nothing to do with everyday reasoning. Therefore the Performance score is the best indicator of his true intelligence. When you have such a huge difference in composite scores, the FSIQ is irrelevant...
    Also, his earlier tests would have been a children's version and is less heavily weighted on learned information, which would make sense considering his special education service status.

    Jessie is capable of at least an 88 nonverbal. This is the most accurate score because it removes culture and language from the equation. Culture and language are learned and come from experience (that's achievement, not intelligence). Working Memory and Processing Speed are related to attention, concentration, and planning and organization. This may make someone slower at the draw, but does not inhibit the ability to process. He's demonstrated that he processes within the low average to average range within confidence intervals
Sign In or Register to comment.