Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed

Blockhead

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Eddie has proven himself to be an extremely intelligent man with similar values to most of us and the wisdom to appropriately apply them. Additionally, he has more knowledge of this case than any of us. He has the resources (time, money, staff) to have researched every detail of the case. He knows ALL the evidence from both sides. He has been involved in the investigation for years. And he actually KNOWS the defendants personally. Eddie Vedder is one of the few EXPERTS on this case. The only people who know more about it are the WM3, the boys who were murdered, & the killers.

Should we blindly follow experts on any subject? No, and no one is blindly following Ed in this case. But when we don't have the resources to become experts ourselves on a subject, it is wise & appropriate for us to give weight to what the experts have to say. This is how the world of knowledge works.

In summary:
1. Ed is well-educated on the facts in the case & is personally familiar with the characters the defendants.
2. Ed is intelligent & wise enough to critically process this information & come to a logical conclusion.
3. Ed is trustworthy enough for us to believe he wouldn't lie to us about the case.
Therefore: Ed is a legitimate source of information.

I felt to need to bold a couple things here to prove my point. You go on and on about how much of an expert Eddie is on this case and list a short summary.
Quick question. I went to the Eddie Vedder concert In June (2009) and was given a Playbill which had a nice little summary of the WM3 case (2 pages). Contained in those pages were 3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)
I am trying to figure out how such an extremely intelligent man with more knowledge on the case than anyone could write such a biased summary containing lie after lie and omitting alot of important facts? He describes damien as "dark haired and thoughtful mannered, fingered as the ring leader" Sounds like somebody didn't read Damiens mental history (index 500).
Its sad that somone could lead such a support for a case to get people free, when he clearly hasn't read or studied any case files. If he did, why is he supporting such disinformation/ lies.

Wow, that's a bold accusation against Ed: that he is straight up lying to all of us when he claims to be educated about the case. (And that he would shell out probably millions of dollars without doing any basic research. :roll: ) And, of course, in sticking with your theme about what constitutes evidence, your "evidence" of this is that he disagrees with you by claiming that Damien has dark hair, has a thoughtful manner, and was thought to be the ringleader.

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

It doesn't really matter what either of you say anyway because I have done all my own research on this case & read just as much as, if not more than, you have about it, I'm sure I possess the ability to critically examine the evidence & weigh it against the law, & I have come to my own opinion. And it disagrees with yours. Get over it, blockhead.

So your OK with Eddie lying because you share the same opinion has him...

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

How many lies are you going to post... Please cite the case files as those are about the only things in this thread that are not biased. No parent? 8 hours? have you even read what I have posted in this thread. I have already debunked Jessies IQ, I show by court documents that his parents consented to the confession, and I showed there was not such 12 hour (now your downgrading) to 8 hour confession.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...

His parents may have consented to the confession, but they weren't present. And your spouting of more vitriol doesn't explain why his 'confession' contained so many glaring errors. But then you only see what you want to see when posting your angry, bitter little rants.

Oh, and it's 'You look like an idiot', not 'You look like a idiot'.

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

So, how exactly do you know this? Both about Ed and also about Blockhead?

Blockhead

_ wrote:

Wow, that's a bold accusation against Ed: that he is straight up lying to all of us when he claims to be educated about the case. (And that he would shell out probably millions of dollars without doing any basic research. :roll: ) And, of course, in sticking with your theme about what constitutes evidence, your "evidence" of this is that he disagrees with you by claiming that Damien has dark hair, has a thoughtful manner, and was thought to be the ringleader.

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

It doesn't really matter what either of you say anyway because I have done all my own research on this case & read just as much as, if not more than, you have about it, I'm sure I possess the ability to critically examine the evidence & weigh it against the law, & I have come to my own opinion. And it disagrees with yours. Get over it, blockhead.

And your criteria is a bit skewed. You have never spoken to Eddie Vedder, so you know nothing about him, only his view on certin subjects at certin places of time(one of which he puts forward, supports blatant lies).
I am not sure what your definition is but I am surly more "educated" than he is.
As far as trustworthy? Have you ever met Eddie? talked to him? Have you ever talked to me? met me?
I Bet If I was in your favorite band you would believe everything I said to...

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

So, how exactly do you know this? Both about Ed and also about Blockhead?

I presume he knows this from having heard and read what Ed Vedder has to say on a range of issues, and from reading what Blockhead has posted on this message board under the name Blockhead and Heidijam.

But then you already know this, and your question was just designed to stir shit up.

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

How many lies are you going to post... Please cite the case files as those are about the only things in this thread that are not biased. No parent? 8 hours? have you even read what I have posted in this thread. I have already debunked Jessies IQ, I show by court documents that his parents consented to the confession, and I showed there was not such 12 hour (now your downgrading) to 8 hour confession.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...

His parents may have consented to the confession, but they weren't present. And your spouting of more vitriol doesn't explain why his 'confession' contained so many glaring errors. But then you only see what you want to see when posting your angry, bitter little rants.

Oh, and it's 'You look like an idiot', not 'You look like a idiot'.

Speaking of only seeing what you want, How many confessions did Jesse have? Since you know the case so well.
I also already posted that in Jesse's first confession he admitted to lying to police to get them "off track"
That is also supported by testimony. So that does explain why his 1st confession contained so many glaring errors.

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

I am not sure what your definition is but I am surly more "educated" than he is.

I think you mean 'surely', not 'surly'.

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

So, how exactly do you know this? Both about Ed and also about Blockhead?

I presume he knows this from having heard and read what Ed Vedder has to say on a range of issues, and from reading what Blockhead has posted on this message board under the name Blockhead and Heidijam.

But then you already know this, and your question was just designed to stir shit up.

Please link to me where eddie has ever cited the court documents?

facepollution

Blockhead wrote:

Please cite the case files as those are about the only things in this thread that are not biased. No parent? 8 hours? have you even read what I have posted in this thread. I have already debunked Jessies IQ, I show by court documents that his parents consented to the confession, and I showed there was not such 12 hour (now your downgrading) to 8 hour confession.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...

You have not debunked Jessie's IQ at all, do you even know what IQ testing is and what it means? It's certainly not a 100% accurate reflection of a person's mental intelligence. They were designed as a guide to identifying children who needed special education. Jessie may have scored 88 (lower side of average) on two tests, but anyone who has seen a video or heard a recording of Jessie can see that he's not of average intelligence - this was even evident in the recent court hearing in the way the judge spoke to him.

His parents may have consented, but he was not with them, he was a 17 year old boy of lower intelligence than average, in a police station with no lawyer, being shown pictures of dead children, and you don't think he might have been even the slightest bit vulnerable? How can you possibly dismiss the two or so hours that weren't recorded? Do yourself a favour and go and read up about the phenomenon of false confessions, you might just find that Jessie was pretty much a text book example of the kind of person likely to falsely confess. Hell, people of completely sound mind have falsely confessed to crimes, it might be hard to understand, but it DOES happen, and has been proven on many occasions.

See you might be captain Cut and Paste round here, and I'm not doubting that you're well read on the factual stuff, but the conclusions you have come to are far from water tight, they're just your opinions. The difference between your views and mine (and many other people on here), is that you have come to a conclusion, I have not. I can't say for 100% sure that they are inncocent, but there are far too many leaks in the evidence presented to say that they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Having gone back through a few of your posts I was surprised to find you bringing up the necklace as some kind of evidence when surely you know that it wasn't used because there was no way of proving whether the second strain of dna was Jason's or Steve Branch's (not to mention 11% of the caucasion population)? Seems to me you've come to a conclusion and now you're trying to justify it.

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Wow, that's a bold accusation against Ed: that he is straight up lying to all of us when he claims to be educated about the case. (And that he would shell out probably millions of dollars without doing any basic research. :roll: ) And, of course, in sticking with your theme about what constitutes evidence, your "evidence" of this is that he disagrees with you by claiming that Damien has dark hair, has a thoughtful manner, and was thought to be the ringleader.

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

It doesn't really matter what either of you say anyway because I have done all my own research on this case & read just as much as, if not more than, you have about it, I'm sure I possess the ability to critically examine the evidence & weigh it against the law, & I have come to my own opinion. And it disagrees with yours. Get over it, blockhead.

So your OK with Eddie lying because you share the same opinion has him...

:roll: No, blockhead, I'm not okay with Eddie lying. I just don't trust you enough to even assess the situation based on your word. (BTW, I see that you quoted me before I finished my edit.)

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

Speaking of only seeing what you want, How many confessions did Jesse have? Since you know the case so well.
I also already posted that in Jesse's first confession he admitted to lying to police to get them "off track"
That is also supported by testimony. So that does explain why his 1st confession contained so many glaring errors.

He 'confessed' 3 times.

As for deliberately lying to 'get them off track', why would he want to get them off track if his aim was to indict two other people?

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

So, how exactly do you know this? Both about Ed and also about Blockhead?

Observation.

Blockhead

facepollution wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Please cite the case files as those are about the only things in this thread that are not biased. No parent? 8 hours? have you even read what I have posted in this thread. I have already debunked Jessies IQ, I show by court documents that his parents consented to the confession, and I showed there was not such 12 hour (now your downgrading) to 8 hour confession.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...

You have not debunked Jessie's IQ at all, do you even know what IQ testing is and what it means? It's certainly not a 100% accurate reflection of a person's mental intelligence. They were designed as a guide to identifying children who needed special education. Jessie may have scored 88 (lower side of average) on two tests, but anyone who has seen a video or heard a recording of Jessie can see that he's not of average intelligence - this was even evident in the recent court hearing in the way the judge spoke to him.

His parents may have consented, but he was not with them, he was a 17 year old boy of lower intelligence than average, in a police station with no lawyer, being shown pictures of dead children, and you don't think he might have been even the slightest bit vulnerable? How can you possibly dismiss the two or so hours that weren't recorded? Do yourself a favour and go and read up about the phenomenon of false confessions, you might just find that Jessie was pretty much a text book example of the kind of person likely to falsely confess. Hell, people of completely sound mind have falsely confessed to crimes, it might be hard to understand, but it DOES happen, and has been proven on many occasions.

See you might be captain Cut and Paste round here, and I'm not doubting that you're well read on the factual stuff, but the conclusions you have come to are far from water tight, they're just your opinions. The difference between your views and mine (and many other people on here), is that you have come to a conclusion, I have not. I can't say for 100% sure that they are inncocent, but there are far too many leaks in the evidence presented to say that they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Having gone back through a few of your posts I was surprised to find you bringing up the necklace as some kind of evidence when surely you know that it wasn't used because there was no way of proving whether the second strain of dna was Jason's or Steve Branch's (not to mention 11% of the caucasion population)? Seems to me you've come to a conclusion and now you're trying to justify it.

Do you know what Malingering is?
Here is your IQ debunk. What I posted on page 6.
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html
I know many wont read due to the length but I will give a summary about Misskelley's IQ.

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?
WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

His Performance IQ was 75 in the test he took for the trial.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?
WILKINS: 88.

So his performance IQ plunged 13 points from the previous year.

In fact, prior to the test given to him for his trial it was consistently average...

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?
WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.
DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?
WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.
DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.
WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.
DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?
WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

So his previous performance scores were average - he's charged with murder, and in a test given by his witness, his score suddenly drops 13 points.

You suppose maybe he was faking?

Let's see what his witness had to say about that...

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?
WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.
DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?
WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.
DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.
WILKINS: Uh, very high.
DAVIS: Very high?
WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.
DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?
WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.
DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?
WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?
WILKINS: Yes.

So his own witness got caught on the stand "mispronouncing" Misskelley's malingering index - when the actual score strongly indicated he was faking to aid in his defense.

These aren't opinions, they are the documented results of his testing.

Of course this wasn't the first time Wilkins got caught "mispronouncing" MMPI results...

A psychologist who evaluated Jessie Misskelley Jr. as borderline mentally retarded and very suggestible went before the state Board of Psychological Examiners last month and had his practice limited.
Dr. William Wilkins of Jonesboro must practice under the direction of a supervisor and cannot handle sexual abuse or neuro-psychology cases, he said under rigorous questioning from prosecutors this morning in the capital murder trial of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.

Why was his licenses restricted?

An evaluation of Wilkins done by another psychologist reported concerns about Wilkins' lack of knowledge of fundamental psychological defects and the scales used in scoring the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality test (MMPI) and Wexler tests, common psychological and intelligence evaluation tools. Wilkins used both those tests, along with the Rorshchach test, in evaluating Misskelley.



The fact is, Misskelley wasn't retarded - even when he TRIED to be...

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

Please link to me where eddie has ever cited the court documents?

I actually think that you have no genuine interest in this case at all.

I think you simply take pleasure in being as obnoxious and bitter as possible, and that this issue is just another means by which you can take an opposing side and spout off your animosity.

You clearly choose to pounce on every little nonsensical crumb that exists with this WM3 case and then pretend to possess some superior knowledge about it.

The trouble is, you haven't managed to convince anyone.

You're just stewing in your own juices.

Byrnzie

If there was nothing wrong with Jessie MissKelley's I.Q, then why was he in special education throughout his school years?

_

Blockhead wrote:

I also already posted that in Jesse's first confession he admitted to lying to police to get them "off track"
That is also supported by testimony. So that does explain why his 1st confession contained so many glaring errors.

Do you not understand how you are arguing against your own position with this?? Let's follow your logic here: You're saying Jessie's confession must be true because (1) He's actually reasonably intelligent, despite claims to the contrary, and (2) he said he lied to the police about minor details in his confession to throw them off track in their investigation.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever to try to throw the police off track in their investigation when you are fully confessing to a crime!

mickeyrat

Blockhead wrote:

facepollution wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Please cite the case files as those are about the only things in this thread that are not biased. No parent? 8 hours? have you even read what I have posted in this thread. I have already debunked Jessies IQ, I show by court documents that his parents consented to the confession, and I showed there was not such 12 hour (now your downgrading) to 8 hour confession.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...

You have not debunked Jessie's IQ at all, do you even know what IQ testing is and what it means? It's certainly not a 100% accurate reflection of a person's mental intelligence. They were designed as a guide to identifying children who needed special education. Jessie may have scored 88 (lower side of average) on two tests, but anyone who has seen a video or heard a recording of Jessie can see that he's not of average intelligence - this was even evident in the recent court hearing in the way the judge spoke to him.

His parents may have consented, but he was not with them, he was a 17 year old boy of lower intelligence than average, in a police station with no lawyer, being shown pictures of dead children, and you don't think he might have been even the slightest bit vulnerable? How can you possibly dismiss the two or so hours that weren't recorded? Do yourself a favour and go and read up about the phenomenon of false confessions, you might just find that Jessie was pretty much a text book example of the kind of person likely to falsely confess. Hell, people of completely sound mind have falsely confessed to crimes, it might be hard to understand, but it DOES happen, and has been proven on many occasions.

See you might be captain Cut and Paste round here, and I'm not doubting that you're well read on the factual stuff, but the conclusions you have come to are far from water tight, they're just your opinions. The difference between your views and mine (and many other people on here), is that you have come to a conclusion, I have not. I can't say for 100% sure that they are inncocent, but there are far too many leaks in the evidence presented to say that they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Having gone back through a few of your posts I was surprised to find you bringing up the necklace as some kind of evidence when surely you know that it wasn't used because there was no way of proving whether the second strain of dna was Jason's or Steve Branch's (not to mention 11% of the caucasion population)? Seems to me you've come to a conclusion and now you're trying to justify it.

Do you know what Malingering is?
Here is your IQ debunk. What I posted on page 6.
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html
I know many wont read due to the length but I will give a summary about Misskelley's IQ.

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?
WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

His Performance IQ was 75 in the test he took for the trial.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?
WILKINS: 88.

So his performance IQ plunged 13 points from the previous year.

In fact, prior to the test given to him for his trial it was consistently average...

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?
WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.
DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?
WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.
DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.
WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.
DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?
WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

So his previous performance scores were average - he's charged with murder, and in a test given by his witness, his score suddenly drops 13 points.

You suppose maybe he was faking?

Let's see what his witness had to say about that...

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?
WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.
DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?
WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.
DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.
WILKINS: Uh, very high.
DAVIS: Very high?
WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.
DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?
WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.
DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?
WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?
WILKINS: Yes.

So his own witness got caught on the stand "mispronouncing" Misskelley's malingering index - when the actual score strongly indicated he was faking to aid in his defense.

These aren't opinions, they are the documented results of his testing.

Of course this wasn't the first time Wilkins got caught "mispronouncing" MMPI results...

A psychologist who evaluated Jessie Misskelley Jr. as borderline mentally retarded and very suggestible went before the state Board of Psychological Examiners last month and had his practice limited.
Dr. William Wilkins of Jonesboro must practice under the direction of a supervisor and cannot handle sexual abuse or neuro-psychology cases, he said under rigorous questioning from prosecutors this morning in the capital murder trial of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.

Why was his licenses restricted?

An evaluation of Wilkins done by another psychologist reported concerns about Wilkins' lack of knowledge of fundamental psychological defects and the scales used in scoring the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality test (MMPI) and Wexler tests, common psychological and intelligence evaluation tools. Wilkins used both those tests, along with the Rorshchach test, in evaluating Misskelley.



The fact is, Misskelley wasn't retarded - even when he TRIED to be...

Umm, Blockhead? Any and all tests are based on opinion of the person preforming them. FACT. Be they medical, mental etc. The problem with them is they invovle a fallible human being to interperet AND report.


I'm just curious why you are so hellbent to get people to your way of thinking? Aren't you tired from beating this dead horse?

I'm sure we ALL get it. YOU believe they are guilty and shouldnt have been released. Many others here DONT and are happy they are free. Still others arent sure of guilt one way or the other. Let it go man. Surely you have better uses of your time than continueing to post on this subject?

_

Oh, God, he started ANOTHER thread about it. :roll:

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Please link to me where eddie has ever cited the court documents?

I actually think that you have no genuine interest in this case at all.

I think you simply take pleasure in being as obnoxious and bitter as possible, and that this issue is just another means by which you can take an opposing side and spout off your animosity.

You clearly choose to pounce on every little nonsensical crumb that exists with this WM3 case and then pretend to possess some superior knowledge about it.

The trouble is, you haven't managed to convince anyone.

You're just stewing in your own juices.

Its not about convincing anyone, its about getting the truth, something that Eddie Vedder can't do concerning this case.
Byrnzine, you seem to be the only one who has conveyed knowledge on this case and If you believe they are innocent, I support your educated opinion.
I came here to post court documents ( I rarely see any posted on this case) and let people educate themselves and at least come to their own conclusion. Thats all.
I am sorry I called you an Idiot. I just want the info out there...

facepollution

Blockhead wrote:

The fact is, Misskelley wasn't retarded - even when he TRIED to be...

That's not debunking his mental capabilities, it's debunking one particular test - even if you go with the higher scores of 88 he would still be deemed to be of less than average intelligence. Besides, as I stated IQ testing is no exact science, and largely pertains to academic intelligence, not intelligence as a whole which is far too unique to be comparable and thus ranked. And this is a completely moot point because as I stated, people of average IQ levels falsely confess too. All it means in regards to Jessie is that he would have been more susceptible because of his lower than average mental capacity.

Now try responding to the rest of my post instead of just cutting and pasting from callahans.