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.
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?
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...
He was in police custody from 10am to at least 9pm.
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
That's a nice cut-and-paste job. Where did you cut-and-paste it from? Why are you pretending that they are your own words, when they're clearly not?
Either way, his I.Q level was determined to be 72. You're simply cherry-picking to suit your own ends.
His 'confessions' were false confessions. He was coerced by the police into making those statements.
Even so, the 'confessions' were full of inaccuracies, that directly contradict the evidence found at the crime scene, and also contradict the time of the murders.
He has since admitted that he just told the investigators what they wanted to hear. He's also since admitted that the confessions were a lie.
The bottom line is that you have no real interest in the justice of this case at all.
You're simply using it as a means to take a contrary view to all honest and objective opinion that has been cast upon it, and using your selective cherry-picking of the facts, along with out-right lying, to antagonize people.
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.[/i]
Mr. Stidham then went back into the room, at which time he did not allow us, nor did we request or insist on having contact with his client. He went back inside and talked for another hour and came back and to paraphrase indicated that his client's story matched with the facts much better and there were a
few things we needed to do to be able to corroborate his statement.
At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client's statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.
To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, "If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened." At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.
http://web.archive.org/web/200707180734 ... is_dan.php
No blood at all was found at the scene. Luminol testing done at the crime scene some two weeks after the discovery of the bodies revealed the presence of possible blood at the crime scene in, and on, the ditch bank where the bodies were laid by the police after they were removed from the water. Blood seeped from the bodies unto the soil where the bodies were laid. Luminal testing is not admissible in Court because it is not scientifically reliable; (The medical examiner testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial that it would be impossible for the injuries that were inflicted on those boys to be inflicted without leaving blood at the scene.) No follow up blood test was performed.
Update: Brent Turvey's analysis reveals that most likely the boys were killed elsewhere and that they were dumped at the site where the bodies were recovered. This explains the lack of blood found at the crime scene.
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??
As an experiment, Dan Stidham had attempted to get Jessie Misskelley to confess to an armed robbery that never occurred.
From Dan Stidham: “As part of an experiment, Dr. Wilkins and myself were able to get Jessie to confess to committing a robbery that never occurred. This was ruled inadmissible by the Court, and the jury never knew this. I often bragged that I could get Jessie to confess to killing JFK, although he wasn't even born in 1963. I am still convinced I could get him to confess to almost anything.”
That would be good stuff for the defense, Sadly no such evidence exist...
"Wilkins said that their informant had called Jessie a "little faggot" and asked if that made him mad. Jessie looked despondent. They took a break, and then told Jessie that the police were on the way. There was a long break, and Jessie reappears smoking a cigarette. He said that he got to the "shop," and got out of his dad's truck. The tape cut out and picked up again with a discussion of what happened in the police station on June 3rd."
You mean the part where Misskelley confessed to this robbery is "missing"?
haha nice try...
http://web.archive.org/web/200707180734 ... is_dan.php
No blood at all was found at the scene. Luminol testing done at the crime scene some two weeks after the discovery of the bodies revealed the presence of possible blood at the crime scene in, and on, the ditch bank where the bodies were laid by the police after they were removed from the water. Blood seeped from the bodies unto the soil where the bodies were laid. Luminal testing is not admissible in Court because it is not scientifically reliable; (The medical examiner testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial that it would be impossible for the injuries that were inflicted on those boys to be inflicted without leaving blood at the scene.) No follow up blood test was performed.
Update: Brent Turvey's analysis reveals that most likely the boys were killed elsewhere and that they were dumped at the site where the bodies were recovered. This explains the lack of blood found at the crime scene.
You should probably quit posting now...
The luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. thats 5 days...
You just pasted from your source "SOME TWO WEEKS" http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
From the investigative report:
The second area of blood was found in the slowly sloping area just to the east of Body
#1 on the bank. This is a portion of the bank that looks to have a slope of about 1 foot to
a 3 foot distance. East of the blood about 5 feet begins a steep slope and west of the
blood is the creek and body #1. Mr. Smith explained that a significant amount of blood
was located here and it appeared that one or more of the victims apparently lost a lot of
blood in that area.
The third area is east of Body #1 and just to the south. The area again is a slowly sloping
area with a slope of 1 foot in 2 1/2 foot. Just east of this area is another steep slope
where foot prints were located that went up to a point in the steep slope. The also was
an area where it appeared to be a significant amount of blood where one or more of the
victims may have bled a large amount.
The first three areas appeared to be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet above the bottom of the Ditch
and at the time the bodies were located were exposed above the water line by over two
feet.
The Fourth area is in the ditch just above to the north of Body #2. This area seemed to
have a large amount of blood that appeared to be where the bodys bled out while in the
water. This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered
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.
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?
Custody = interrogated...
Dude get over it Eddie Vedder lied about simple facts...
Maybe you should read how many times he was read it rights... And Jesse was not stranger to the law/rights/lawyers...
And he had no representation. And his I.Q was 72.
The confessions were false, as he has since admitted.
Why do you continue to address the 1st confession, and dismiss the others, especailly post conviction...
I haven't dismissed the later 'confessions'. If you actually bother to read what people post in-between frothing at the mouth you'll see that I addressed the issue of his later 'confessions' on the previous page of this thread. I even highlighted it in blue for your benefit.
The confessions were false, as he has since admitted.
Why do you continue to address the 1st confession, and dismiss the others, especailly post conviction...
I haven't dismissed the later 'confessions'. If you actually bother to read what people post in-between frothing at the mouth you'll see that I addressed the issue of his later 'confessions' on the previous page of this thread. I even highlighted it in blue for your benefit.
New prosecution evidence...
A plastic bag with the Road Runner Petro logo found at the scene containing inter alia a black thermal t shirt size Medium, a khaki short sleeve button down shirt size L, men’s size 33-34 Jordache jeans, a pair of white socks recovered from the pipe near the scene. A red fiber found on Michael Moore ‘s boyscout shirt, which was microscopically similar to a red and white pullover shirt of Echols, was also found in this bag.
Although the fiber matched one from the victim, and one belonging to Echols, investigators could never tie-in the bag to one of the suspects.
When Echols was interviewed on May 9, he told Gary Gitchell that he was a roofer and worked for Alderson roofing. This is also confirmed by some of his medical records.
In the only deposition Eddie Hutchison gave, he told detectives he worked at Petro.
Although he purposely never referred to it as Road Runner Petro, www.blinkoncrime.com was able to trace the names of his supervisors back to the Memphis, TN Road Runner Petro.
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
Nice try. But we all know - and you have already admitted - that his IQ was actually in the low 70s, as Ed said.
You should probably quit posting now...
The luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. thats 5 days...
You just pasted from your source "SOME TWO WEEKS" http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
From the investigative report:
The second area of blood was found in the slowly sloping area just to the east of Body
#1 on the bank. This is a portion of the bank that looks to have a slope of about 1 foot to
a 3 foot distance. East of the blood about 5 feet begins a steep slope and west of the
blood is the creek and body #1. Mr. Smith explained that a significant amount of blood
was located here and it appeared that one or more of the victims apparently lost a lot of
blood in that area.
The third area is east of Body #1 and just to the south. The area again is a slowly sloping
area with a slope of 1 foot in 2 1/2 foot. Just east of this area is another steep slope
where foot prints were located that went up to a point in the steep slope. The also was
an area where it appeared to be a significant amount of blood where one or more of the
victims may have bled a large amount.
The first three areas appeared to be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet above the bottom of the Ditch
and at the time the bodies were located were exposed above the water line by over two
feet.
The Fourth area is in the ditch just above to the north of Body #2. This area seemed to
have a large amount of blood that appeared to be where the bodys bled out while in the
water. This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered
Photo #2 is an area of illumination that is directly over the spot where victim number 1 was lain upon the bank when he was pulled from the water. This spot is 3’8” from the spot on the large oak tree in a direct line between that spot and location the body was found in the water.
Photo #3 was taken on a root of the oak tree with the reference spot, the root is 6’0” from the reference point in a straight line from that point heading straight into the water.
The fluoresced area in front of this large root indicated an area that was down sloping toward the water, the illuminate spot formed a ‘V’ like shape!
Area’s that were to be photographed were at such an angle, the questionable area was probably wash due to the amount of rain and it was nearby a sheer drop off into the water. The spot illuminated some on both sides of a tree that had been marked with a paint spot to be the third reference point. The cliff like areas were not conducive to pitching a tent to create darkness so photo could be made! The final spot was on the plateau beside the three tree group with reference point spot had been sprayed on. It was the spot where victims two and three had been laid upon the shore when pulled from the water! We were operating in rain and mud hauling tent material and black plastic, we tracked (?) the spot that the area did not illuminate enough to photograph!
The fact remains that despite what appeared to the investigators to be blood at the scene, in actual fact NO blood was discovered at the scene of the crime.
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??
As an experiment, Dan Stidham had attempted to get Jessie Misskelley to confess to an armed robbery that never occurred.
From Dan Stidham: “As part of an experiment, Dr. Wilkins and myself were able to get Jessie to confess to committing a robbery that never occurred. This was ruled inadmissible by the Court, and the jury never knew this. I often bragged that I could get Jessie to confess to killing JFK, although he wasn't even born in 1963. I am still convinced I could get him to confess to almost anything.”
That would be good stuff for the defense, Sadly no such evidence exist...
"Wilkins said that their informant had called Jessie a "little faggot" and asked if that made him mad. Jessie looked despondent. They took a break, and then told Jessie that the police were on the way. There was a long break, and Jessie reappears smoking a cigarette. He said that he got to the "shop," and got out of his dad's truck. The tape cut out and picked up again with a discussion of what happened in the police station on June 3rd."
You mean the part where Misskelley confessed to this robbery is "missing"?
haha nice try...
Huh? For one thing, if you're going to quote something, you need to cite it. For another, you're not making any sense. The documentation about the false confession to the crime that never happened is in the court records - one of the ones you posted, I believe.
http://web.archive.org/web/200707180734 ... is_dan.php
No blood at all was found at the scene. Luminol testing done at the crime scene some two weeks after the discovery of the bodies revealed the presence of possible blood at the crime scene in, and on, the ditch bank where the bodies were laid by the police after they were removed from the water. Blood seeped from the bodies unto the soil where the bodies were laid. Luminal testing is not admissible in Court because it is not scientifically reliable; (The medical examiner testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial that it would be impossible for the injuries that were inflicted on those boys to be inflicted without leaving blood at the scene.) No follow up blood test was performed.
Update: Brent Turvey's analysis reveals that most likely the boys were killed elsewhere and that they were dumped at the site where the bodies were recovered. This explains the lack of blood found at the crime scene.
You should probably quit posting now...
The luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. thats 5 days...
You just pasted from your source "SOME TWO WEEKS" http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
From the investigative report:
The second area of blood was found in the slowly sloping area just to the east of Body
#1 on the bank. This is a portion of the bank that looks to have a slope of about 1 foot to
a 3 foot distance. East of the blood about 5 feet begins a steep slope and west of the
blood is the creek and body #1. Mr. Smith explained that a significant amount of blood
was located here and it appeared that one or more of the victims apparently lost a lot of
blood in that area.
The third area is east of Body #1 and just to the south. The area again is a slowly sloping
area with a slope of 1 foot in 2 1/2 foot. Just east of this area is another steep slope
where foot prints were located that went up to a point in the steep slope. The also was
an area where it appeared to be a significant amount of blood where one or more of the
victims may have bled a large amount.
The first three areas appeared to be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet above the bottom of the Ditch
and at the time the bodies were located were exposed above the water line by over two
feet.
The Fourth area is in the ditch just above to the north of Body #2. This area seemed to
have a large amount of blood that appeared to be where the bodys bled out while in the
water. This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered
Dude, seriously - do you understand how much blood people have? If two of the victims bled to death at the crime scene, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there was not enough blood for them to have seen it without special forensic testing. There would be VISIBLE blood all over the place!
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?
Custody = interrogated...
Dude get over it Eddie Vedder lied about simple facts...
The things you are saying are getting more & more absurd.
cus·to·dy /ˈkʌstədi/ Show Spelled[kuhs-tuh-dee] Show IPA
noun, plural -dies.
1. keeping; guardianship; care.
2. the keeping or charge of officers of the law: The car was held in the custody of the police.
3. imprisonment; legal restraint: He was taken into custody.
4. Also called child custody. Law . the right of determining the residence, protection, care, and education of a minor child or children, especially in a divorce or separation.
in·ter·ro·gate /ɪnˈtɛrəˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled [in-ter-uh-geyt] Show IPA verb, -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.
2. to examine by questions; question formally: The police captain interrogated the suspect.
You should probably quit posting now...
The luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. thats 5 days...
You just pasted from your source "SOME TWO WEEKS" http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
From the investigative report:
The second area of blood was found in the slowly sloping area just to the east of Body
#1 on the bank. This is a portion of the bank that looks to have a slope of about 1 foot to
a 3 foot distance. East of the blood about 5 feet begins a steep slope and west of the
blood is the creek and body #1. Mr. Smith explained that a significant amount of blood
was located here and it appeared that one or more of the victims apparently lost a lot of
blood in that area.
The third area is east of Body #1 and just to the south. The area again is a slowly sloping
area with a slope of 1 foot in 2 1/2 foot. Just east of this area is another steep slope
where foot prints were located that went up to a point in the steep slope. The also was
an area where it appeared to be a significant amount of blood where one or more of the
victims may have bled a large amount.
The first three areas appeared to be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet above the bottom of the Ditch
and at the time the bodies were located were exposed above the water line by over two
feet.
The Fourth area is in the ditch just above to the north of Body #2. This area seemed to
have a large amount of blood that appeared to be where the bodys bled out while in the
water. This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered
Dude, seriously - do you understand how much blood people have? If two of the victims bled to death at the crime scene, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there was not enough blood for them to have seen it without special forensic testing. There would be VISIBLE blood all over the place!
I though you knew about this crime? It wasn't done in some 4 walled room...
It was done outside and it rained...
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?
Custody = interrogated...
Dude get over it Eddie Vedder lied about simple facts...
The things you are saying are getting more & more absurd.
cus·to·dy /ˈkʌstədi/ Show Spelled[kuhs-tuh-dee] Show IPA
noun, plural -dies.
1. keeping; guardianship; care.
2. the keeping or charge of officers of the law: The car was held in the custody of the police.
3. imprisonment; legal restraint: He was taken into custody.
4. Also called child custody. Law . the right of determining the residence, protection, care, and education of a minor child or children, especially in a divorce or separation.
in·ter·ro·gate /ɪnˈtɛrəˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled [in-ter-uh-geyt] Show IPA verb, -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.
2. to examine by questions; question formally: The police captain interrogated the suspect.
Dude, seriously - do you understand how much blood people have? If two of the victims bled to death at the crime scene, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there was not enough blood for them to have seen it without special forensic testing. There would be VISIBLE blood all over the place!
I though you knew about this crime? It wasn't done in some 4 walled room...
It was done outside and it rained...
Okay, well next time I want to commit a triple murder, I'll just be sure and do it on a rainy day and that will solve all my evidence problems. :roll:
This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered
Dude, seriously - do you understand how much blood people have? If two of the victims bled to death at the crime scene, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there was not enough blood for them to have seen it without special forensic testing. There would be VISIBLE blood all over the place!
I though you knew about this crime? It wasn't done in some 4 walled room...
It was done outside and it rained...
Okay, well next time I want to commit a triple murder, I'll just be sure and do it on a rainy day and that will solve all my evidence problems. :roll:[/quote]
When are you going to link where Jesse confessed to the fake robbery?
When are you going to link where Jesse confessed to the fake robbery?
YOU already linked to it. Don't you read the documents you post??
I asked proof from JESSE, not his lawyers...
Don't you read the documents I post...
The witness said it in open court and the prosecution didn't deny it! In fact, they had the judge rule it inadmissible, which means they knew it was true and could hurt their case. If they doubted its validity it would have been a great opportunity to make the defense look bad, but they clearly indicated that they knew it was true.
Man, you're a real piece of work. I'm curious why you had to run away and start a whole new thread as soon as all the evidence in this one disproved most of what you said.
Again, please explain why Jessie confessed to a crime that never happened.
I am often asked to explain the events surrounding my client's so-called second Confession. Many people look to this "second" confession as a way of dismissing the claims by the defense that Misskelley statements were the product of coercion by police and thereby false. These people do not know the factual basis surrounding Misskelley's post trial statements. In 1994, after Misskelley's conviction and immediately prior to the Echols/Baldwin trial in Jonesboro, prosecutors were desperate for Misskelley's testimony against his co-defendants. They did not feel that they could obtain convictions against Echols and Baldwin without Misskelley's assistance. This is evident for the scene in "Paradise Lost" where prosecutors are explaining to the victims' families that the chances were slim without Misskelley's testimony and cooperation. I prepared a Motion to Dismiss based upon Prosecutorial Misconduct for Echols and Baldwin's attorneys which was denied by the trial Court. In this motion, the factual basis surrounding Misskelley's second confession is laid out. It is public record and set forth herein in its entirety:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS
WESTERN DISTRICT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
Vs. No.:CR93 ______
DAMIEN WAYNE ECHOLS and CHARLES JASON BALDWIN
DEFENDANTS MOTION
Comes now the Defendants, by and through their Court Appointed Attorneys, and for their Motion, hereby state and allege as follows:
1. That a CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., was convicted on February 4, 1994, of the offenses of one (1) count of First Degree Murder and two (2) counts of Second Degree Murder and was sentenced by the Court to life imprisonment on the First Degree Murder charge and twenty (20) years imprisonment on each count of Second Degree Murder to run consecutively. On February 4, 1994, the Court and the Prosecution was informed by counsel for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. that said sentences were going to be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. That the Court and the Prosecution was further informed by defense counsel that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had no intention of testifying against his codefendants Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin.
2. That Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin are each charged with three (3) counts of Capital Murder and their trial is set to start in Craighead County on Tuesday, February 22, 1994.
3. That the Prosecuting Attorney, his Deputies, the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Department and the Craighead County, Arkansas Sheriff's Department have all known that Daniel T. Stidham and Gregory L. Crow were the duly appointed attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. since June, 1993.
4. That on February 4, 1994, following sentencing of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., as set forth above, officers of the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Office transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Arkansas Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officers, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited a statement from the Defendant.
5. That the actions of the Clay County Sheriff's Department officers on February 4, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.
6. This impropriety represents a conscious, calculated and ongoing attempt by the Prosecution to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Courtappointed attorneys and to circumvent Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.
7. That on Tuesday, February 8, 1994, and again on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's court appointed attorney, Daniel T. Stidham, visited with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., at the request of the Prosecution.
8. That on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Daniel T. Stidham, in person, again, notified the Prosecuting Attorney's Office that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had no desire to testify against his codefendant's, Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, and would not be testifying against said codefendants.
9. That on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Fogleman contacted the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s father, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr., and requested that he talk his son into testifying against his codefendant's in exchange for a forty (40) year sentence. Mr. Misskelley, Sr., again, informed the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants in their upcoming trial in Craighead County.
10. That also on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecuting Attorney, Brent Davis, requested permission from Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s attorneys to interview Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Said permission was not granted.
11. Further, on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecution obtained an ex parte Order from the Court to transport Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to Craighead County to testify against his codefendants. This Order was obtained without the knowledge and consent of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his attorneys despite repeated statements to the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants. The fact that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was being transported to Craighead County to testify as a witness was communicated to the Media and a copy of the Order transporting him was even shown on television. To this date, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's attorneys have yet to see said Order.
12. That at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, February, 17, 1994, the attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. received a phone call from C. Joseph Calvin, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Clay County, Arkansas who stated that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was present in his office and desired to make a statement. Mr. Calvin was informed by both of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley's attorneys that he was not to take any statement from their client, Jessie.
13. That the CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was transported to Rector, Arkansas on February 17, 1994, by a member of the Craighead County Sheriff's Office. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officer, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited statements from the Defendant and encouraged Jessie Lloyd Misskelley to testify against his Co Defendants. Said officer even promised to bring Jessie Lloyd's girlfriend to the Jail to visit him.
14. That the actions of the Craighead County Sheriff's Department officer on February 17, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.
15. This impropriety represents a conscious, calculated and ongoing attempt by the Prosecution to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Courtappointed attorneys and to circumvent Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.
16. That Daniel T. Stidham and Gregory L. Crow arrived in Rector, Arkansas at approximately 7:00 p.m. and discovered that Prosecuting Attorney Brent Davis was also present at the office of Joe Calvin and that prosecutors had already communicated with their client without their knowledge and consent. That said attorneys were allowed to communicate with their client, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., for only approximately fifteen minutes when Prosecutors Davis and Calvin burst into the conference room and demanded to take a statement from Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Stidham and Crow objected to the interference and informed prosecutors that they wished to visit with their client uninterrupted. Prosecutors then expressed their fear, in the presence of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., that Defense Attorneys would convince Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to decline to make a statement to them. Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. then stood up and announced that he wished to make a statement in spite of the advise and counsel of his attorneys, and exited the conference room and refused to talk to his attorneys further.
17. That the Honorable Judge David Burnett was telephoned at which time Mr. Stidham voiced his objections to his client being present in the prosecutors office in the first place, that his presence at the prosecutor's office was a violation of his client's Constitutional rights, that Mr. Misskelley had requested psychiatric care on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, that he questioned Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's current mental competency and requested a mental evaluation, and that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had informed him on Tuesday, February 15, 1994 that he did not wish to testify against his codefendant's. The Court denied the objections and request for a mental evaluation by Mr. Stidham and permitted the Prosecution to offer use immunity to Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and take his statement over said objections.
18. After taking his statement, the Prosecution transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Clay County Detention Center. Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr. traveled to Clay County to talk to his son but was denied access to his son by Clay County Officials.
19. That the Prosecution, the Court and attorneys for Damien Wayne Echols and Jason Baldwin were notified on February 18, 1994, that the attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley were "outraged" at the conduct of the prosecution and that the Prosecution was to have no further contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, as reflected in Defendants Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
20. That Prosecutors, again, visited with Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. without the knowledge and consent of his attorneys on Friday, February 18, 1994, Saturday, February 19, 1994 and on Sunday, February 20, 1994 in direct violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.
21. That the abovementioned conduct and actions of the Prosecution are a willful and deliberate attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., and said actions and conduct are a conscious and calculated attempt to circumvent the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Further, said actions and conduct were a calculated and deliberate attempt to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Court appointed attorneys.
22. Arkansas Law does not permit the prosecutor to call a codefendant as a witness against other codefendants when he has knowledge that the codefendant would be advised to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. Here counsel for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had repeatedly advised the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his co defendants, and as such, the Prosecution cannot claim that it was not aware of this fact.
23.That the abovementioned conduct and actions of the Prosecution are a willful and deliberate attempt to circumvent, and make a mockery of, the law as set forth in paragraph twentytwo (22) above, and to violate the Constitutional Rights of the defendants, Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin. Said actions and conduct on the part of the Prosecution are a conscious and calculated attempt to circumvent the due process rights of said defendants, their right to receive a fair and impartial trial andtheir right to confront the witnesses against them.
24. That said conduct on the part of the Prosecution, regardless of whether or not Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. actually testifies against his codefendants, seriously undermines and impairs, or could actually makes it impossible, for Damien Wayne Echols or Charles Jason Baldwin toreceive a fair and impartial jury trial due to the fact that said conduct on the part of the prosecution constitutes a"grandstand play" which has improperly drew attention to Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s alleged confession which he submitted throughout the course of his trial was coerced. Potential jurors will now place emphasis on this improper "grandstand play" by the Prosecutor due to pretrial publicity.
Wow, what a way to manipulate a mentally handicapped boy! They should be ashamed of themselves. I can't help but note as well that their deliberate attempt to use this kid to manipulate the public - as precisely predicted by his attorney - has worked (on some people, at least). I can understand a nearly retarded kid & a public without all the facts falling for it, but none of us have any excuse.
What is going on with Jessie Misskelley anyway? Am I the only one who thinks that it appears as though he has been cast aside as the other 2 are going to celebrity parties, Misskelley has resorted to begging on Facebook for $300 for his electric to be turned on? With all of the money raised in this case, he's living without electricity? I wonder how long it will be before he confesses again to make some $$$.
Comments
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?
He was in police custody from 10am to at least 9pm.
That's a nice cut-and-paste job. Where did you cut-and-paste it from? Why are you pretending that they are your own words, when they're clearly not?
Either way, his I.Q level was determined to be 72. You're simply cherry-picking to suit your own ends.
His 'confessions' were false confessions. He was coerced by the police into making those statements.
Even so, the 'confessions' were full of inaccuracies, that directly contradict the evidence found at the crime scene, and also contradict the time of the murders.
He has since admitted that he just told the investigators what they wanted to hear. He's also since admitted that the confessions were a lie.
The bottom line is that you have no real interest in the justice of this case at all.
You're simply using it as a means to take a contrary view to all honest and objective opinion that has been cast upon it, and using your selective cherry-picking of the facts, along with out-right lying, to antagonize people.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html
Mr. Stidham then went back into the room, at which time he did not allow us, nor did we request or insist on having contact with his client. He went back inside and talked for another hour and came back and to paraphrase indicated that his client's story matched with the facts much better and there were a
few things we needed to do to be able to corroborate his statement.
At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client's statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.
To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, "If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened." At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.
You do realize that you need to stop lying, right?
http://www.jivepuppi.com/
'...no blood was found, in spite of one victim bleeding to death.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200707180734 ... is_dan.php
No blood at all was found at the scene. Luminol testing done at the crime scene some two weeks after the discovery of the bodies revealed the presence of possible blood at the crime scene in, and on, the ditch bank where the bodies were laid by the police after they were removed from the water. Blood seeped from the bodies unto the soil where the bodies were laid. Luminal testing is not admissible in Court because it is not scientifically reliable; (The medical examiner testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial that it would be impossible for the injuries that were inflicted on those boys to be inflicted without leaving blood at the scene.) No follow up blood test was performed.
Update: Brent Turvey's analysis reveals that most likely the boys were killed elsewhere and that they were dumped at the site where the bodies were recovered. This explains the lack of blood found at the crime scene.
As an experiment, Dan Stidham had attempted to get Jessie Misskelley to confess to an armed robbery that never occurred.
From Dan Stidham: “As part of an experiment, Dr. Wilkins and myself were able to get Jessie to confess to committing a robbery that never occurred. This was ruled inadmissible by the Court, and the jury never knew this. I often bragged that I could get Jessie to confess to killing JFK, although he wasn't even born in 1963. I am still convinced I could get him to confess to almost anything.”
That would be good stuff for the defense, Sadly no such evidence exist...
"Wilkins said that their informant had called Jessie a "little faggot" and asked if that made him mad. Jessie looked despondent. They took a break, and then told Jessie that the police were on the way. There was a long break, and Jessie reappears smoking a cigarette. He said that he got to the "shop," and got out of his dad's truck. The tape cut out and picked up again with a discussion of what happened in the police station on June 3rd."
You mean the part where Misskelley confessed to this robbery is "missing"?
haha nice try...
And he had no representation. And his I.Q was 72.
The confessions were false, as he has since admitted.
The luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. thats 5 days...
You just pasted from your source "SOME TWO WEEKS"
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_tanderson.html
From the investigative report:
The second area of blood was found in the slowly sloping area just to the east of Body
#1 on the bank. This is a portion of the bank that looks to have a slope of about 1 foot to
a 3 foot distance. East of the blood about 5 feet begins a steep slope and west of the
blood is the creek and body #1. Mr. Smith explained that a significant amount of blood
was located here and it appeared that one or more of the victims apparently lost a lot of
blood in that area.
The third area is east of Body #1 and just to the south. The area again is a slowly sloping
area with a slope of 1 foot in 2 1/2 foot. Just east of this area is another steep slope
where foot prints were located that went up to a point in the steep slope. The also was
an area where it appeared to be a significant amount of blood where one or more of the
victims may have bled a large amount.
The first three areas appeared to be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet above the bottom of the Ditch
and at the time the bodies were located were exposed above the water line by over two
feet.
The Fourth area is in the ditch just above to the north of Body #2. This area seemed to
have a large amount of blood that appeared to be where the bodys bled out while in the
water. This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered
Dude get over it Eddie Vedder lied about simple facts...
I haven't dismissed the later 'confessions'. If you actually bother to read what people post in-between frothing at the mouth you'll see that I addressed the issue of his later 'confessions' on the previous page of this thread. I even highlighted it in blue for your benefit.
A plastic bag with the Road Runner Petro logo found at the scene containing inter alia a black thermal t shirt size Medium, a khaki short sleeve button down shirt size L, men’s size 33-34 Jordache jeans, a pair of white socks recovered from the pipe near the scene. A red fiber found on Michael Moore ‘s boyscout shirt, which was microscopically similar to a red and white pullover shirt of Echols, was also found in this bag.
Although the fiber matched one from the victim, and one belonging to Echols, investigators could never tie-in the bag to one of the suspects.
When Echols was interviewed on May 9, he told Gary Gitchell that he was a roofer and worked for Alderson roofing. This is also confirmed by some of his medical records.
In the only deposition Eddie Hutchison gave, he told detectives he worked at Petro.
Although he purposely never referred to it as Road Runner Petro, www.blinkoncrime.com was able to trace the names of his supervisors back to the Memphis, TN Road Runner Petro.
Alderson Roofing & Metal shares a parking lot with Road Runner Petro
http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/the- ... should-be/
That's irrelevant because it doesn't make the police interrogation any less against the law.
You forgot to mention the following:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_tanderson.html
Photo #2 is an area of illumination that is directly over the spot where victim number 1 was lain upon the bank when he was pulled from the water. This spot is 3’8” from the spot on the large oak tree in a direct line between that spot and location the body was found in the water.
Photo #3 was taken on a root of the oak tree with the reference spot, the root is 6’0” from the reference point in a straight line from that point heading straight into the water.
The fluoresced area in front of this large root indicated an area that was down sloping toward the water, the illuminate spot formed a ‘V’ like shape!
Area’s that were to be photographed were at such an angle, the questionable area was probably wash due to the amount of rain and it was nearby a sheer drop off into the water. The spot illuminated some on both sides of a tree that had been marked with a paint spot to be the third reference point. The cliff like areas were not conducive to pitching a tent to create darkness so photo could be made! The final spot was on the plateau beside the three tree group with reference point spot had been sprayed on. It was the spot where victims two and three had been laid upon the shore when pulled from the water! We were operating in rain and mud hauling tent material and black plastic, we tracked (?) the spot that the area did not illuminate enough to photograph!
The fact remains that despite what appeared to the investigators to be blood at the scene, in actual fact NO blood was discovered at the scene of the crime.
Huh? For one thing, if you're going to quote something, you need to cite it. For another, you're not making any sense. The documentation about the false confession to the crime that never happened is in the court records - one of the ones you posted, I believe.
Dude, seriously - do you understand how much blood people have? If two of the victims bled to death at the crime scene, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there was not enough blood for them to have seen it without special forensic testing. There would be VISIBLE blood all over the place!
The things you are saying are getting more & more absurd.
cus·to·dy /ˈkʌstədi/ Show Spelled[kuhs-tuh-dee] Show IPA
noun, plural -dies.
1. keeping; guardianship; care.
2. the keeping or charge of officers of the law: The car was held in the custody of the police.
3. imprisonment; legal restraint: He was taken into custody.
4. Also called child custody. Law . the right of determining the residence, protection, care, and education of a minor child or children, especially in a divorce or separation.
in·ter·ro·gate /ɪnˈtɛrəˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled [in-ter-uh-geyt] Show IPA verb, -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.
2. to examine by questions; question formally: The police captain interrogated the suspect.
It was done outside and it rained...
When are you going to link where Jesse confessed to the fake robbery?
YOU already linked to it. Don't you read the documents you post??
Don't you read the documents I post...
Man, you're a real piece of work. I'm curious why you had to run away and start a whole new thread as soon as all the evidence in this one disproved most of what you said.
Again, please explain why Jessie confessed to a crime that never happened.
http://web.archive.org/web/200610010240 ... php?page=3
JESSIE MISSKELLEY'S SO-CALLED SECOND CONFESSION
I am often asked to explain the events surrounding my client's so-called second Confession. Many people look to this "second" confession as a way of dismissing the claims by the defense that Misskelley statements were the product of coercion by police and thereby false. These people do not know the factual basis surrounding Misskelley's post trial statements. In 1994, after Misskelley's conviction and immediately prior to the Echols/Baldwin trial in Jonesboro, prosecutors were desperate for Misskelley's testimony against his co-defendants. They did not feel that they could obtain convictions against Echols and Baldwin without Misskelley's assistance. This is evident for the scene in "Paradise Lost" where prosecutors are explaining to the victims' families that the chances were slim without Misskelley's testimony and cooperation. I prepared a Motion to Dismiss based upon Prosecutorial Misconduct for Echols and Baldwin's attorneys which was denied by the trial Court. In this motion, the factual basis surrounding Misskelley's second confession is laid out. It is public record and set forth herein in its entirety:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS
WESTERN DISTRICT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
Vs. No.:CR93 ______
DAMIEN WAYNE ECHOLS and CHARLES JASON BALDWIN
DEFENDANTS MOTION
Comes now the Defendants, by and through their Court Appointed Attorneys, and for their Motion, hereby state and allege as follows:
1. That a CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., was convicted on February 4, 1994, of the offenses of one (1) count of First Degree Murder and two (2) counts of Second Degree Murder and was sentenced by the Court to life imprisonment on the First Degree Murder charge and twenty (20) years imprisonment on each count of Second Degree Murder to run consecutively. On February 4, 1994, the Court and the Prosecution was informed by counsel for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. that said sentences were going to be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. That the Court and the Prosecution was further informed by defense counsel that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had no intention of testifying against his codefendants Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin.
2. That Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin are each charged with three (3) counts of Capital Murder and their trial is set to start in Craighead County on Tuesday, February 22, 1994.
3. That the Prosecuting Attorney, his Deputies, the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Department and the Craighead County, Arkansas Sheriff's Department have all known that Daniel T. Stidham and Gregory L. Crow were the duly appointed attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. since June, 1993.
4. That on February 4, 1994, following sentencing of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., as set forth above, officers of the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Office transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Arkansas Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officers, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited a statement from the Defendant.
5. That the actions of the Clay County Sheriff's Department officers on February 4, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.
6. This impropriety represents a conscious, calculated and ongoing attempt by the Prosecution to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Courtappointed attorneys and to circumvent Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.
7. That on Tuesday, February 8, 1994, and again on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's court appointed attorney, Daniel T. Stidham, visited with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., at the request of the Prosecution.
8. That on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Daniel T. Stidham, in person, again, notified the Prosecuting Attorney's Office that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had no desire to testify against his codefendant's, Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, and would not be testifying against said codefendants.
9. That on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Fogleman contacted the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s father, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr., and requested that he talk his son into testifying against his codefendant's in exchange for a forty (40) year sentence. Mr. Misskelley, Sr., again, informed the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants in their upcoming trial in Craighead County.
10. That also on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecuting Attorney, Brent Davis, requested permission from Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s attorneys to interview Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Said permission was not granted.
11. Further, on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecution obtained an ex parte Order from the Court to transport Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to Craighead County to testify against his codefendants. This Order was obtained without the knowledge and consent of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his attorneys despite repeated statements to the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants. The fact that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was being transported to Craighead County to testify as a witness was communicated to the Media and a copy of the Order transporting him was even shown on television. To this date, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's attorneys have yet to see said Order.
12. That at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, February, 17, 1994, the attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. received a phone call from C. Joseph Calvin, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Clay County, Arkansas who stated that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was present in his office and desired to make a statement. Mr. Calvin was informed by both of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley's attorneys that he was not to take any statement from their client, Jessie.
13. That the CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was transported to Rector, Arkansas on February 17, 1994, by a member of the Craighead County Sheriff's Office. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officer, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited statements from the Defendant and encouraged Jessie Lloyd Misskelley to testify against his Co Defendants. Said officer even promised to bring Jessie Lloyd's girlfriend to the Jail to visit him.
14. That the actions of the Craighead County Sheriff's Department officer on February 17, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.
15. This impropriety represents a conscious, calculated and ongoing attempt by the Prosecution to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Courtappointed attorneys and to circumvent Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.
16. That Daniel T. Stidham and Gregory L. Crow arrived in Rector, Arkansas at approximately 7:00 p.m. and discovered that Prosecuting Attorney Brent Davis was also present at the office of Joe Calvin and that prosecutors had already communicated with their client without their knowledge and consent. That said attorneys were allowed to communicate with their client, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., for only approximately fifteen minutes when Prosecutors Davis and Calvin burst into the conference room and demanded to take a statement from Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Stidham and Crow objected to the interference and informed prosecutors that they wished to visit with their client uninterrupted. Prosecutors then expressed their fear, in the presence of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., that Defense Attorneys would convince Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to decline to make a statement to them. Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. then stood up and announced that he wished to make a statement in spite of the advise and counsel of his attorneys, and exited the conference room and refused to talk to his attorneys further.
17. That the Honorable Judge David Burnett was telephoned at which time Mr. Stidham voiced his objections to his client being present in the prosecutors office in the first place, that his presence at the prosecutor's office was a violation of his client's Constitutional rights, that Mr. Misskelley had requested psychiatric care on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, that he questioned Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's current mental competency and requested a mental evaluation, and that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had informed him on Tuesday, February 15, 1994 that he did not wish to testify against his codefendant's. The Court denied the objections and request for a mental evaluation by Mr. Stidham and permitted the Prosecution to offer use immunity to Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and take his statement over said objections.
18. After taking his statement, the Prosecution transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Clay County Detention Center. Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr. traveled to Clay County to talk to his son but was denied access to his son by Clay County Officials.
19. That the Prosecution, the Court and attorneys for Damien Wayne Echols and Jason Baldwin were notified on February 18, 1994, that the attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley were "outraged" at the conduct of the prosecution and that the Prosecution was to have no further contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, as reflected in Defendants Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
20. That Prosecutors, again, visited with Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. without the knowledge and consent of his attorneys on Friday, February 18, 1994, Saturday, February 19, 1994 and on Sunday, February 20, 1994 in direct violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.
21. That the abovementioned conduct and actions of the Prosecution are a willful and deliberate attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., and said actions and conduct are a conscious and calculated attempt to circumvent the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Further, said actions and conduct were a calculated and deliberate attempt to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Court appointed attorneys.
22. Arkansas Law does not permit the prosecutor to call a codefendant as a witness against other codefendants when he has knowledge that the codefendant would be advised to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. Here counsel for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had repeatedly advised the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his co defendants, and as such, the Prosecution cannot claim that it was not aware of this fact.
23.That the abovementioned conduct and actions of the Prosecution are a willful and deliberate attempt to circumvent, and make a mockery of, the law as set forth in paragraph twentytwo (22) above, and to violate the Constitutional Rights of the defendants, Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin. Said actions and conduct on the part of the Prosecution are a conscious and calculated attempt to circumvent the due process rights of said defendants, their right to receive a fair and impartial trial andtheir right to confront the witnesses against them.
24. That said conduct on the part of the Prosecution, regardless of whether or not Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. actually testifies against his codefendants, seriously undermines and impairs, or could actually makes it impossible, for Damien Wayne Echols or Charles Jason Baldwin toreceive a fair and impartial jury trial due to the fact that said conduct on the part of the prosecution constitutes a"grandstand play" which has improperly drew attention to Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s alleged confession which he submitted throughout the course of his trial was coerced. Potential jurors will now place emphasis on this improper "grandstand play" by the Prosecutor due to pretrial publicity.
Cool, i'll check it out.