Blockhead, if you're so convinced of their guilt, why don't you just call the Arkansas Supreme Court and tell them you don't agree with what the state did in letting the WM3 out. I think you're beating a dead horse here.
You seem hell bent on convincing others that you are right. Others seem hell bent on convincing you that you're wrong. Agree to disagree and give it up already.
Its sad that because hes Eddie Vedder of PJ, no one can acknowledge that he lied for a cause he supports...
The interrogration timeframe seemed to be an ongoing published discrepancy probably because it had value towards the appeals. You probably already knew this; however, your discussion is no longer about generating interest in the case as a whole. It’s all about you trying to prove EV a liar. It’s all about you receiving some kind of acknowledgement to your perceived ‘I Gotcha Ed’, to which you are not entitled. Everyone walks away from this case after 18 years and you want hang EV out there because you believed he lied. How needy.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
0
coachchris
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 749
I respect everyone having an opinion but after doing further research into this case, I find it difficult for anyone to argue on behalf of the prosecution.
Glad to see them set free...
It's difficult to disagree with professionals at the top of their fields worldwide who all agree on the same thing. Please present a forensic pathologist or any expert for that matter that has supported the prosecutions side. Please bring up Dr. Dale Griffis :roll:
Adolescence in essence is all about trust.
Leaving is for the answering machine.
Its sad that because hes Eddie Vedder of PJ, no one can acknowledge that he lied for a cause he supports...
I really think it's sad that you continue to stir this pot. So he said the word "interrogated" instead of "in custody".
"did you work today?"
"yep"
"for how long?"
"my usual, 8 hours"
"didn't you take a lunch?"
"yeah, an hour"
"YOU LIAR! THAT MEANS YOU ONLY WORKED FOR 7 HOURS!! HOW COULD YOU????
if he "lied" about something serious about the case, maybe, but come on dude, this is pathetic. it almost seems to me you are going after Ed just because he's Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Background: Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was just four years old when his mother abandoned him, leaving him and his severely retarded brother in the care of Jessie Sr. According to Jessie's family, Jessie's brother was later institutionalized and Jessie Jr. was diagnosed himself as being retarded. Doctor's recommended that Jessie Jr. receive special education and family counseling, but this was never done. Tests conducted at our request after his arrest indicated that Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was operating at the level of a five year old child. His reading level was severely retarded, and his overall IQ was in the range of 72, which indicates that he is borderline mentally retarded.
a. Our research indicated that due to his mental handicap, Jessie was not able to understand any aspect of his "Miranda Rights," which require a sixth grade reading level to understand.
b. Jessie Misskelley, approximately two weeks after the murders, was hanging out with some friends near Bojangles Restaurant in West Memphis. A "bum" asked him and his friends to accompany him to his "Fort" and drink beer. Jessie and his friends refused and called police thinking that this "bum" might be the killer of the three boys. The "bum" was picked up and questioned but released. He was the son of a Crittenden County Sheriff's deputy. Jessie and his friends were told by Police that if they found the killer that they would get the reward money.
c. On June 3rd, 1993, police acting on the information from Vicky Hutcheson, re: the Esbat, picked up Jessie Misskelley, Jr. for questioning. He was taken to the police station at about 9:30 a.m., after Officer Allen told Jessie Sr. that they wanted to talk to Jessie Jr. about Damien. Allen told Jessie Sr. and Jim McNease that Jessie would get the reward money IF he helped in the investigation. In response to police questioning, Jessie said that he had heard that Damien and a guy named Robert Burch had killed the boys. Jessie told police that he was roofing with Ricky Deese the day of the murders. He denied being at Turrell, AR for a devil-worshippers' meeting with Vicky and Damien, telling police that he had never even been to Turrell at all.
NOTE: Jessie was questioned by police despite the fact that under Arkansas law he could only be questioned if his parents consented to a waiver of his Miranda rights in writing, since he was only 17 years. of age.
d. Police believing that he was lying asked Jessie if he would submit to a polygraph test. Jessie, not knowing what a polygraph test was, told police that he would take the test. Officer Allen took Jessie to get his father's written permission for the polygraph test, but still did not discuss Jessie's Miranda Rights, or their waiver in writing. Instead, when they found Jessie Sr. another discussion was had about Jessie receiving the reward money, if he helped find the killer.
e. Jessie was administered the polygraph at about noon. Jessie was asked a series of ten questions. One of the questions was "do you do drugs," which Jessie answered "NO" There were several very generic questions about the murders. Each time Jessie stated that he knew nothing about the murders. After the test was completed, Jessie was told by Officer Durham that he was "lying his ass off." Jessie admitted that he had lied about the drug question, but officer Durham said that he was lying about the murders, and even told Jessie that he knew he was lying because "Jessie's brain was telling him so."
NOTE: Experts tell us that when a person of limited intellect and who is very suggestible is told that they have flunked a polygraph test, they will often confess falsely as their perception of reality is changed and they see it as their only chance to avoid getting into trouble and the only way they can please their interrogators, and ultimately leave the pressure of the interrogation.
f. Jessie was then interrogated for two hours during which time he vehemently denied any role in the murders. He was denied the right to talk to his father, and was grilled repeatedly by Gitchell and Ridge. Finally, Officer Gitchell showed Jessie a picture of one of the boys bodies which terribly frightened Jessie. Then Gitchell played a tape to Jessie using Aaron's voice which said "Nobody knows what happened but me." This frightened Jessie even more.
g. Then Gitchell showed Jessie a diagram. The diagram contained a circle with three dots in it which represented Damien, Jason and Jessie. Gitchell then drew dozens of dots on the outside of the circle, and asked Jessie if he wanted to be on the outside with the police or on the inside with Damien and Jessie. This all frightened Jessie and he told Gitchell and Ridge he wanted out.
All this finally broke Jessie's will, and his mind told him that the only way out was to tell them what they wanted to hear. After rehearsing the scenario, over and over again, he finally told them that he had seen Damien and Jason rape and murder the boys. He unwittingly told police enough to cause himself to be an accomplice. Instead of allowing him to go home as police promised, he was locked up. The interrogation itself lasted almost twelve hours, but only about twenty minutes of audio tape exist regarding the confession. Immediately after the confession, when Jessie realized he wasn't going home, he recanted the entire confession, but it was too late.
NOTE: 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.
NOTE #2: Police fearing our defense of false confession, searched feverishly for a way to corroborate Jessie's story. They questioned a friend of Jessie's named Buddy Lucas. Lucas told Officers Durham and Ridge that Jessie confessed to him that he had witnessed the murders the day after the murders occurred. Lucas told the officers that he and an uncle went to Jessie's on the day of the murders and took the Misskelleys some BBQ chicken. According to Lucas, Jessie Jr. wasn't there, but Jessie Sr. told him that Jessie had went to W Memphis w/ some teenagers. Lucas then told the officers that the next day, he went over to Jessie's house and that he and Jessie got their hair cut by Stephanie Dollar. After the hair cuts, Jessie told Buddy everything. Jessie even gave Buddy the shoes he was wearing when the boys were killed which Buddy readily handed over to police.
Suddenly, the West Memphis police had the technology to video tape an interrogation, something they couldn't do with Jessie on June 3, 1993. I went to the Police Department and watched the video of Buddy's statement. The statement seemed strange to me, a poor attempt by Mr. Lucas to give the police something to corroborate Jessie's statement. After the tape was over, Officer Ridge readily admitted to me that as soon as Buddy finished his statement, he refused to take a polygraph exam to confirm same, and even recanted everything he said on the tape. I went to Jessie Sr.'s and asked him about the chicken. He said he Buddy and his uncle never brought him any chicken. Buddy's uncle also denied delivering any chicken, and Stephanie Dollar said she did not cut Buddy's hair on May 6, 1993.
Ron Lax tracked down Buddy, and he and I took a statement from Buddy, on video tape. Buddy said the police threatened him and told him he would go to jail if he didn't tell them about Jessie doing the murders. Buddy said he made up the story to keep from going to jail and that he "hated to have to lie on Jessie" but he was scared of the cops. Buddy said Jessie had given him some tennis shoes long before the murders ever took place, and the shoes that he gave police were not even the ones Jessie had loaned him. When the police took the shoes, they gave Buddy a brand new pair of boots. Buddy told Ron and myself that he was glad to tell us the real story.
When I asked Jessie about Buddy, he said that he hadn't seen Buddy in a long time, and that Buddy was real dumb. Jessie said Buddy was in "special education" in school. If Jessie thought he was slow then you can imagine how slow he really was. We arranged for Buddy to be represented by an attorney, and he was not hassled by the police anymore. When prosecutors learned of his recantation, they did not call him to testify. In a very difficult decision, Greg and I chose not to put Buddy on the stand at trial because he was so nervous and wouldn't have made a good witness. Further, the jury might have believed Buddy's statement to police, which the prosecution surely would have used to impeach him, and this might have been all the jury needed to convict Jessie of Capital Murder something that could have cost him his life.
In addition, Buddy's testimony might be construed by the appellate court as corroboration, something we have submitted all along they did not have. In hindsight, I still think we made the right decision in not using Buddy at trial.
G. Facts of Jessie's confession do not match facts of crime scene
1. Jessie says boys skipped school May 5, 1993.
FACT: Boys were in school all day, so was Jason Baldwin.
2. Jessie says boys were killed at noon on May 5, 1993.
FACT: Boys were in school until 3:00 p.m., and were last seen alive at about 6:30 p.m. ME says time of death was 1:00 TO 5:00 a.m. on May 6th, 1993. Jessie worked with Ricky Deese until about 12:30 p.m.
3. Jessie says boys were raped (sodomized).
FACT: Medical examiner says no trauma to boys anuses, something that would have been there if they were raped.
4. Jessie says Jason castrated Christopher Byers with a single swing of a knife.
FACT: Medical examiner says that the penis of Byers was methodically skinned by someone with extensive knowledge of anatomy and the process would have taken some time to complete even under laboratory conditions.
Update: The mutilation was not skillful or meticulous as Peretti said. It was crudely done. This is still quite inconsistent with Misskelley's confession.
5. Jessie says that the boys were tied up with a brown rope.
FACT: The boys were bound with their own shoestrings.
6. Jessie says the boys were beaten with a big ol' stick and cut with a knife.
FACT: No blood was found at the scene, and ME says those injuries could not be inflicted with out a great deal of blood loss. (This leads on to believe that the boys were killed elsewhere and their bodies dumped in the creek. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that search teams were combing the woods that night walked all over the spot where the bodies were recovered.)
Update: Brent Turvey's Profile of the case corroborates our belief that the boys were killed elsewhere.
7. Jessie says Damien choked one of the boys with a big ol' stick.
FACT: Medical Examiner says none of the boys had choking or strangulation injuries.
These are just a few of the most obvious inconsistencies.
G. What the experts tell us
1. The defense retained the services of two well known experts who are recognized as being the tops in their field, Dr. Richard Ofshe and Mr. Warren Holmes.
2. Background on retention of experts:
a. Richard Ofshe:
1. Ron Lax told us about Dr. Richard Ofshe. An attorney friend of Ron's in California recommended Ofshe to Ron for use in Damien's trial as an expert on the occult. Ofshe won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the Synanon Cult in California. Ofshe has a second area of expertise, False Confessions, and Ron suggested we talk to Dr. Ofshe. I called Ofshe, at the University of California in Berkeley, and explained that I thought Jessie had falsely confessed to the homicides. I further explained that I was appointed by the Court and had no money with which to pay him. This did not deter Ofshe. He asked about evidence against Jessie, independent of the confession, and I informed him there was none. He agreed to look over the transcript of the confession, which I Fed-Exed him that day.
About a week later, Ofshe phoned me and informed me that Jessie's confession was the worst false confession that he had ever seen, and that he felt Jessie was innocent. Ofshe's testimony is part of the trial transcript and is very, very compelling evidence of Jessie's innocence. Ofshe, like myself is absolutely convinced of Jessie's innocence.
From almost the beginning, I wanted to have the polygraph test Jessie had on June 3, 1993, looked over by another expert. The lawyer in me was hesitant though because I was afraid I might not like the results of the independent analysis. When I discussed this with Dr. Ofshe, he told me, "Don't be afraid, Dan, your client is innocent." That's when I called Warren Holmes in Miami.
b. Warren Holmes
1. I read about Warren Holmes in a Florida case I was researching regarding recordation of interrogations. The case cited Mr. Holmes tremendous experience in the area of polygraphs which includes the following:
a. Mr. Holmes is a consultant to the FBI, the Texas Rangers, the Royal Mounted Canadian Police.
b. Mr. Holmes conducted polygraph examinations in the assassination of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as Watergate.
c. Mr. Holmes worked on the William Kennedy Smith case, the Boston Strangler case, and the Hampton Case from Louisiana.
d. He has over 39 years experience as a homicide detective and a polygraph examiner.
2. When I called Mr. Holmes, I explained to him that I had been appointed to represent an indigent kid in Arkansas charged with killing three boys. I explained to him that I had no money to pay him, but that I really needed his help because I felt my client was innocent. Mr. Holmes finally agreed to look over the polygraph charts from Jessie's polygraph.
3. About a week later, Mr. Holmes phoned me and told me that Jessie had only showed signs of deception on one question. The drug question. Jessie had passed all the questions about the homicides, showing no signs of deception on the charts. It was clear that Officer Durham had lied to Jessie, and that Jessie had falsely confessed in large part because he thought the W. Memphis police had this machine that was telling him "his brain was lying to them." This altered Jessie dim view of reality, and he felt that the only way he could get away from his interrogators was to tell them what they wanted to hear.
4. Mr. Holmes has never been paid for help in our case. The State Of Arkansas reimbursed him the two thousand dollars or so of his personal funds spent flying to Arkansas to testify.
5. Dr. Ofshe did receive some reimbursement of his travel expenses. This did not even come close to reimbursing him for all his expenses.
H. What the jury was not allowed to hear
1. Testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe
a. The Trial judge refused to allow Dr. Ofshe to give all of his opinions with regard to Jessie's case. In short, he was not allowed to tell the jury that, in his opinion, Jessie's confession was a product of police coercion. This despite Dr. Ofshe being allowed to testify to the same issue in Courts around the Country. We made a proffer of what his anticipated testimony would have been, so the Arkansas Supreme Court will be able to determine its admissibility on appeal. Click here to read Dr. Ofshe's testimony.
2. Testimony of Warren Holmes
a. The trial judge refused to allow Mr. Holmes to testify in front of the jury about the results of Jessie's polygraph exam, stating that it was inadmissible. The Court did permit him to testify about interrogation techniques in general which he did.
http://web.archive.org/web/200610010242 ... 102&page=1 FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY WARREN D HOLMES It is the opinion of this examiner, based on an analysis of the polygraph charts from the examination of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. that there were no pronounced physiological reactions indicative of deception at the points on the polygraph charts where he was asked the pertinent test questions. The test results, in the opinion of this examiner, do not corroborate any contention that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. was criminally involved in the death of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, or Steve Branch.
This testimony was crucial to an acquittal for Jessie.
This testimony of both these experts was absolutely crucial to Jessie's defense. When the Judge refused to allow the jury to hear this, it crippled our defense severely. I am convinced that had the jury heard this testimony, Jessie would have been acquitted.
My belief is based on the following:
1. After both Holmes and Ofshe testified at trial, members of the media, and other spectators told Greg and I that they felt we had won the case because their testimony was so compelling. Just think what their reaction might have been had they known everything.
2. We learned, after the trial, that the first vote the jury took in the jury room was 8 for conviction, 4 for acquittal. Despite the limitation the Court imposed on us, we were able to convince 4 jurors he was innocent. We only needed one strong willed juror for a hung-jury and ultimate mistrial, which would have been the next best thing to an acquittal. The 8 wore down the 4, however, and they reached a compromise verdict. Although, we didn't get an acquittal, we were fortunate enough to avoid a capital murder conviction, and thus the death penalty.
Why would this get locked?
I though PJ/Eddie were for the Truth...
I agree with all you have popsted except the lieing by EV part I believe he had a gut feeling about these 3 and wanted to help(bad idea) but with all the links and doc's you have posted I believe these 3 guys were involved with the murders in some way or killed the little boys them selfs.
Godfather.
Why would he put in his playbill something that is not true?
Why not present the information truthfully and let people make up their own minds?
If this quote was from a politician people would be all over it, but since its Eddie, everyone is being defensive about it.
I don't understand, do people want the truth, or do they just want to agree with who they support?
WHY are you asking US this question? Do what Kat suggested. Write a letter to the man himself.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I haven't followed this case closely but over the past weeks have been reading a lot about it. Before much reading about it, I jumped on the supporter bandwagon. I wouldn't call Eddie Vedder a liar but the more I read about the case - the actual documents and evidence, not people's opinions, the more I think they are probably guilty. I'm not 100% on the side of guilty but I get closer the more I read. I don't think the trials were fair, and I think that new trials should have been granted, but the widley reported stories of there being no evidence are just false. There is evidence - circumstantial and otherwise. The jury didn't see it all and it's not all widely reported but it exists. The link has been posted but there is a lot of information at the Callahan website. I have to wonder how many of the celebrity supporters have gone through the evidence as opposed to taking the word of the people behind the documentaries. It's very disappointing to me to get closer to this conclusion. I also think that Jessie Misskelley is getting a bad deal from the 'supporter' organizations. It's my opinion only, but it seems like he's the outcast of the group, he didn't attend the celebrity party ( was that his choice or was he not welcome there? ) and I was shocked to read that he is living with electricity because he doesn't have $300 for a deposit - where's the support from the various organizations now? They can't give him $300? It's only a matter of time before he confesses again, or reoffends, or both. The whole story is just very sad, all the way around, and it's not over yet.
I haven't followed this case closely but over the past weeks have been reading a lot about it. Before much reading about it, I jumped on the supporter bandwagon. I wouldn't call Eddie Vedder a liar but the more I read about the case - the actual documents and evidence, not people's opinions, the more I think they are probably guilty. I'm not 100% on the side of guilty but I get closer the more I read. I don't think the trials were fair, and I think that new trials should have been granted, but the widley reported stories of there being no evidence are just false. There is evidence - circumstantial and otherwise. The jury didn't see it all and it's not all widely reported but it exists. The link has been posted but there is a lot of information at the Callahan website. I have to wonder how many of the celebrity supporters have gone through the evidence as opposed to taking the word of the people behind the documentaries. It's very disappointing to me to get closer to this conclusion. I also think that Jessie Misskelley is getting a bad deal from the 'supporter' organizations. It's my opinion only, but it seems like he's the outcast of the group, he didn't attend the celebrity party ( was that his choice or was he not welcome there? ) and I was shocked to read that he is living with electricity because he doesn't have $300 for a deposit - where's the support from the various organizations now? They can't give him $300? It's only a matter of time before he confesses again, or reoffends, or both. The whole story is just very sad, all the way around, and it's not over yet.
I agree I don't think it's over yet either, great post.
I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if it's been debated above but here's a summary of what I know about from my limited time researching this case...
Other than the confessions, there's
1) plastic Road Runner petro - Echols worked next door to Road Runner, and the bag contained a fiber similar to a fiber found on Michael Moore, similar to fiber on a shirt owned by Echols
2) failed polygraphs by all 3
3) ice axe connected to Baldwin consistent with wounds on the victims, also consistent with the 'swinging knife' referenced in one of Misskelley's confessions
4) DNA on necklace owned by Echols consistent with DNA profiles of Echols, Baldwin, and Stevie Branch
5) luminol blood evidence
6) Echols statement to the police that the whoever did this crime urinated in the mouths of the boys, a week before autopsy revealed urine in the stomachs of 2 of the victims
7) DNA profile evidence on ligatures is not exculpatory to any of the WM3
8) Echols medical records indicate serious psychiatric history
all of this is in the file, and yes I know about problems with polygraphs and confessions - I'm an attorney myself - I'm just saying that the totality of what I've read, changed my personal opinion about the case.
0
coachchris
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 749
I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if it's been debated above but here's a summary of what I know about from my limited time researching this case...
Other than the confessions, there's
1) plastic Road Runner petro - Echols worked next door to Road Runner, and the bag contained a fiber similar to a fiber found on Michael Moore, similar to fiber on a shirt owned by Echols
2) failed polygraphs by all 3
3) ice axe connected to Baldwin consistent with wounds on the victims, also consistent with the 'swinging knife' referenced in one of Misskelley's confessions
4) DNA on necklace owned by Echols consistent with DNA profiles of Echols, Baldwin, and Stevie Branch
5) luminol blood evidence
6) Echols statement to the police that the whoever did this crime urinated in the mouths of the boys, a week before autopsy revealed urine in the stomachs of 2 of the victims
7) DNA profile evidence on ligatures is not exculpatory to any of the WM3
8) Echols medical records indicate serious psychiatric history
all of this is in the file, and yes I know about problems with polygraphs and confessions - I'm an attorney myself - I'm just saying that the totality of what I've read, changed my personal opinion about the case.
1) The defense counsel had presented their own fiber witness who disputed the similarity of the red fiber. It was shown that these fibers could have been matched to any number of items available for purchase at a local department store. Despite the fact that these fibers showed inconclusive results, they were still presented as evidence to tie Jason and Damien to the crime.
2) The only part of the lie detector Jessie failed was the question about drug use. No one has ever found the actual results of Damien's polygraph to my knowlege. Perhaps this is why the results have never been reviewed by an expert....
3) It is my personal opinion that the ice axe was/is no longer in evidence or the state felt it would look so ridiculous that it was missed, and they had been so sure it was the Baldwin knife that a jury would not take it seriously.
4) Can you show me where the prosecution at anytime has brought this "evidence" to the courts? They haven't lol Nothing came back conclusive or even slightly incriminating.
5) Luminol findings? Give me a break...
At the west bank of the stream bed, to the right of some trees, an area gave positive
reaction. It was explained by the Police Department that this was where two of the
victims were placed when they were recovered from the stream bed.
In the stream bed, below the described (at one time) water line, positive luminol tests
indicated where one of the victims was found in the water as related by the West
Memphis Police Department. *of course there was findings below the water line*
North of this point luminol tests gave positive reaction to a large area of
concentration (described by West Memphis Police Department where the third victims
was placed upon recovery from the water).
6) Echols is the one who wanted the urine to be tested to once more prove his innocence!
Here is a list of the other items the defendent wanted tested to prove his innocence:
-- foreign hairs recovered from the victims' bodies and clothing;
-- tissue on the ligatures used to bind the victims;
-- oral, nasal, anal, and penile swabs taken from the victims;
-- fingernail scrapings taken from the victims;
-- all hairs recovered from the crime scene;
-- urine which was contained in the stomachs of two of the victims;
-- a knife found in the ditch where the victims' bodies were recovered;
-- cigarette butts found in a plastic pill bottle near the crime scene;
-- contents of a bag found near the crime scene, containing, inter alia, items of clothing and two razors;
-- a cotton rope found at the crime scene;
-- the white sheets in which the victims' bodies were transported to the Medical Examiner's Office;
-- the white paper on which the victims' clothing was dried before being examined;
-- the knife belonging to John Mark Byers admitted as Defense Exhibit Number E6 at trial;
-- the DNA extract obtained from the John Mark Byers knife by Genetic Design, the laboratory to which it was submitted in 1994;
-- two knives recovered from suspect Richard Cummings;
-- tissue (item Q37) recovered from one of suspect Cummings' knives;
-- the head hair fragments recovered from the handle of a knife found near the crime scene;
-- any other knife recovered in the course of the investigation of this offense;
There are additional items which Echols would like to request be DNA tested, or otherwise scientifically tested, now as well. In additional to the "green vegetable-like material" referenced below, those items are:
1. All of the victims' clothing, including shoes, should be DNA tested.
2. The wooden planks removed from the tree fort near the crime scene should be DNA tested.
3. The victims' shoelaces should be measured to determine which black shoelace was apparently cut in half to be used as a ligature. The remaining, non-ligature portion of that cut shoe lace should then be fiber tested for comparison to other fiber evidence in the case.
4. All remaining biological extracts held at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory or elsewhere, including 'skin cuticles' from the ligatures, should be DNA tested.
5. Various items of physical evidence from the crime scene should be checked for prints and DNA tested: sheriff's badge, bike reflector lights, bicycles, ice pick, cigarette packets (or other containers) and cigarette butts, child's wallet, hook and rope, and all wooden sticks.
6. All hair retrieved from the crime scene should be DNA tested. With respect to the two auburn beard hairs recovered, we request that only one of them be tested in order to preserve the other one for future testing, if necessary.
7. The white sheets in which the victims' bodies were transported to the Medical Examiner's Office, and the white paper on which the victims' clothing was dried before being examined, should be DNA tested.
8. A number of other potential items to be addressed with the Attorney General's Office directly in the meet-and-confer session requested below.
UGH....I'm too tired at this point to argue that we were all teenagers at one point. I'm sure I could have been diagnosed with having serious psychiatric issues too :roll:
Adolescence in essence is all about trust.
Leaving is for the answering machine.
1) The defense counsel had presented their own fiber witness who disputed the similarity of the red fiber. It was shown that these fibers could have been matched to any number of items available for purchase at a local department store. Despite the fact that these fibers showed inconclusive results, they were still presented as evidence to tie Jason and Damien to the crime.
2) The only part of the lie detector Jessie failed was the question about drug use. No one has ever found the actual results of Damien's polygraph to my knowlege. Perhaps this is why the results have never been reviewed by an expert....
3) It is my personal opinion that the ice axe was/is no longer in evidence or the state felt it would look so ridiculous that it was missed, and they had been so sure it was the Baldwin knife that a jury would not take it seriously.
4) Can you show me where the prosecution at anytime has brought this "evidence" to the courts? They haven't lol Nothing came back conclusive or even slightly incriminating.
5) Luminol findings? Give me a break...
At the west bank of the stream bed, to the right of some trees, an area gave positive
reaction. It was explained by the Police Department that this was where two of the
victims were placed when they were recovered from the stream bed.
In the stream bed, below the described (at one time) water line, positive luminol tests
indicated where one of the victims was found in the water as related by the West
Memphis Police Department. *of course there was findings below the water line*
North of this point luminol tests gave positive reaction to a large area of
concentration (described by West Memphis Police Department where the third victims
was placed upon recovery from the water).
6) Echols is the one who wanted the urine to be tested to once more prove his innocence!
Here is a list of the other items the defendent wanted tested to prove his innocence:
-- foreign hairs recovered from the victims' bodies and clothing;
-- tissue on the ligatures used to bind the victims;
-- oral, nasal, anal, and penile swabs taken from the victims;
-- fingernail scrapings taken from the victims;
-- all hairs recovered from the crime scene;
-- urine which was contained in the stomachs of two of the victims;
-- a knife found in the ditch where the victims' bodies were recovered;
-- cigarette butts found in a plastic pill bottle near the crime scene;
-- contents of a bag found near the crime scene, containing, inter alia, items of clothing and two razors;
-- a cotton rope found at the crime scene;
-- the white sheets in which the victims' bodies were transported to the Medical Examiner's Office;
-- the white paper on which the victims' clothing was dried before being examined;
-- the knife belonging to John Mark Byers admitted as Defense Exhibit Number E6 at trial;
-- the DNA extract obtained from the John Mark Byers knife by Genetic Design, the laboratory to which it was submitted in 1994;
-- two knives recovered from suspect Richard Cummings;
-- tissue (item Q37) recovered from one of suspect Cummings' knives;
-- the head hair fragments recovered from the handle of a knife found near the crime scene;
-- any other knife recovered in the course of the investigation of this offense;
There are additional items which Echols would like to request be DNA tested, or otherwise scientifically tested, now as well. In additional to the "green vegetable-like material" referenced below, those items are:
1. All of the victims' clothing, including shoes, should be DNA tested.
2. The wooden planks removed from the tree fort near the crime scene should be DNA tested.
3. The victims' shoelaces should be measured to determine which black shoelace was apparently cut in half to be used as a ligature. The remaining, non-ligature portion of that cut shoe lace should then be fiber tested for comparison to other fiber evidence in the case.
4. All remaining biological extracts held at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory or elsewhere, including 'skin cuticles' from the ligatures, should be DNA tested.
5. Various items of physical evidence from the crime scene should be checked for prints and DNA tested: sheriff's badge, bike reflector lights, bicycles, ice pick, cigarette packets (or other containers) and cigarette butts, child's wallet, hook and rope, and all wooden sticks.
6. All hair retrieved from the crime scene should be DNA tested. With respect to the two auburn beard hairs recovered, we request that only one of them be tested in order to preserve the other one for future testing, if necessary.
7. The white sheets in which the victims' bodies were transported to the Medical Examiner's Office, and the white paper on which the victims' clothing was dried before being examined, should be DNA tested.
8. A number of other potential items to be addressed with the Attorney General's Office directly in the meet-and-confer session requested below.
UGH....I'm too tired at this point to argue that we were all teenagers at one point. I'm sure I could have been diagnosed with having serious psychiatric issues too :roll:
Like I said, I'm no expert on this case. I agree that there were issues with the police work and the trial and I think there should have been a new trial. To say there was no evidence is patently false. The Exhibit 500 psychiatric reports are not typical teenage angst either. I've read the file and I'm not buying the misunderstood teenager stories anymore. Misskelley being left in the dark - literally - bothers me as well. The whole thing bothers me and I don't think it's the end of the story. No disrespect to anyone, but the story isn't as cut and dry as it's been portrayed.
Like I said, I'm no expert on this case. I agree that there were issues with the police work and the trial and I think there should have been a new trial. To say there was no evidence is patently false. The Exhibit 500 psychiatric reports are not typical teenage angst either. I've read the file and I'm not buying the misunderstood teenager stories anymore. Misskelley being left in the dark - literally - bothers me as well. The whole thing bothers me and I don't think it's the end of the story. No disrespect to anyone, but the story isn't as cut and dry as it's been portrayed.
I agree that it's complicated. But I still haven't seen any actual direct evidence. Nothing in your list is evidence that these three committed this crime. Nothing.
#6 is the only thing that might be incriminating, but I haven't seen a source for that. Would you mind posting it, please?
Comments
2003 - http://www.wm3.org/News/view/SALT-LAKE-TRIBUNE-ARTICLE
interrogation = "12 hours"
2011 - http://maraleveritt.com/2011/06/persona ... eme-court/
Interrogation = "close to 8 hours"
And this is an EXPERT..
This is the author of "devils knot"
You seem hell bent on convincing others that you are right. Others seem hell bent on convincing you that you're wrong. Agree to disagree and give it up already.
The interrogration timeframe seemed to be an ongoing published discrepancy probably because it had value towards the appeals. You probably already knew this; however, your discussion is no longer about generating interest in the case as a whole. It’s all about you trying to prove EV a liar. It’s all about you receiving some kind of acknowledgement to your perceived ‘I Gotcha Ed’, to which you are not entitled. Everyone walks away from this case after 18 years and you want hang EV out there because you believed he lied. How needy.
Please take time to watch the following video(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT4KJxr_2J0&feature=fvsr
I respect everyone having an opinion but after doing further research into this case, I find it difficult for anyone to argue on behalf of the prosecution.
Glad to see them set free...
It's difficult to disagree with professionals at the top of their fields worldwide who all agree on the same thing. Please present a forensic pathologist or any expert for that matter that has supported the prosecutions side. Please bring up Dr. Dale Griffis :roll:
Leaving is for the answering machine.
ME THINKS THOUST ON A WITCH HUNT.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I really think it's sad that you continue to stir this pot. So he said the word "interrogated" instead of "in custody".
"did you work today?"
"yep"
"for how long?"
"my usual, 8 hours"
"didn't you take a lunch?"
"yeah, an hour"
"YOU LIAR! THAT MEANS YOU ONLY WORKED FOR 7 HOURS!! HOW COULD YOU????
if he "lied" about something serious about the case, maybe, but come on dude, this is pathetic. it almost seems to me you are going after Ed just because he's Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Yes they were:
http://web.archive.org/web/200610010240 ... php?page=1
False Confession
Background: Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was just four years old when his mother abandoned him, leaving him and his severely retarded brother in the care of Jessie Sr. According to Jessie's family, Jessie's brother was later institutionalized and Jessie Jr. was diagnosed himself as being retarded. Doctor's recommended that Jessie Jr. receive special education and family counseling, but this was never done. Tests conducted at our request after his arrest indicated that Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was operating at the level of a five year old child. His reading level was severely retarded, and his overall IQ was in the range of 72, which indicates that he is borderline mentally retarded.
a. Our research indicated that due to his mental handicap, Jessie was not able to understand any aspect of his "Miranda Rights," which require a sixth grade reading level to understand.
b. Jessie Misskelley, approximately two weeks after the murders, was hanging out with some friends near Bojangles Restaurant in West Memphis. A "bum" asked him and his friends to accompany him to his "Fort" and drink beer. Jessie and his friends refused and called police thinking that this "bum" might be the killer of the three boys. The "bum" was picked up and questioned but released. He was the son of a Crittenden County Sheriff's deputy. Jessie and his friends were told by Police that if they found the killer that they would get the reward money.
c. On June 3rd, 1993, police acting on the information from Vicky Hutcheson, re: the Esbat, picked up Jessie Misskelley, Jr. for questioning. He was taken to the police station at about 9:30 a.m., after Officer Allen told Jessie Sr. that they wanted to talk to Jessie Jr. about Damien. Allen told Jessie Sr. and Jim McNease that Jessie would get the reward money IF he helped in the investigation. In response to police questioning, Jessie said that he had heard that Damien and a guy named Robert Burch had killed the boys. Jessie told police that he was roofing with Ricky Deese the day of the murders. He denied being at Turrell, AR for a devil-worshippers' meeting with Vicky and Damien, telling police that he had never even been to Turrell at all.
NOTE: Jessie was questioned by police despite the fact that under Arkansas law he could only be questioned if his parents consented to a waiver of his Miranda rights in writing, since he was only 17 years. of age.
d. Police believing that he was lying asked Jessie if he would submit to a polygraph test. Jessie, not knowing what a polygraph test was, told police that he would take the test. Officer Allen took Jessie to get his father's written permission for the polygraph test, but still did not discuss Jessie's Miranda Rights, or their waiver in writing. Instead, when they found Jessie Sr. another discussion was had about Jessie receiving the reward money, if he helped find the killer.
e. Jessie was administered the polygraph at about noon. Jessie was asked a series of ten questions. One of the questions was "do you do drugs," which Jessie answered "NO" There were several very generic questions about the murders. Each time Jessie stated that he knew nothing about the murders. After the test was completed, Jessie was told by Officer Durham that he was "lying his ass off." Jessie admitted that he had lied about the drug question, but officer Durham said that he was lying about the murders, and even told Jessie that he knew he was lying because "Jessie's brain was telling him so."
NOTE: Experts tell us that when a person of limited intellect and who is very suggestible is told that they have flunked a polygraph test, they will often confess falsely as their perception of reality is changed and they see it as their only chance to avoid getting into trouble and the only way they can please their interrogators, and ultimately leave the pressure of the interrogation.
f. Jessie was then interrogated for two hours during which time he vehemently denied any role in the murders. He was denied the right to talk to his father, and was grilled repeatedly by Gitchell and Ridge. Finally, Officer Gitchell showed Jessie a picture of one of the boys bodies which terribly frightened Jessie. Then Gitchell played a tape to Jessie using Aaron's voice which said "Nobody knows what happened but me." This frightened Jessie even more.
g. Then Gitchell showed Jessie a diagram. The diagram contained a circle with three dots in it which represented Damien, Jason and Jessie. Gitchell then drew dozens of dots on the outside of the circle, and asked Jessie if he wanted to be on the outside with the police or on the inside with Damien and Jessie. This all frightened Jessie and he told Gitchell and Ridge he wanted out.
All this finally broke Jessie's will, and his mind told him that the only way out was to tell them what they wanted to hear. After rehearsing the scenario, over and over again, he finally told them that he had seen Damien and Jason rape and murder the boys. He unwittingly told police enough to cause himself to be an accomplice. Instead of allowing him to go home as police promised, he was locked up. The interrogation itself lasted almost twelve hours, but only about twenty minutes of audio tape exist regarding the confession. Immediately after the confession, when Jessie realized he wasn't going home, he recanted the entire confession, but it was too late.
NOTE: 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.
NOTE #2: Police fearing our defense of false confession, searched feverishly for a way to corroborate Jessie's story. They questioned a friend of Jessie's named Buddy Lucas. Lucas told Officers Durham and Ridge that Jessie confessed to him that he had witnessed the murders the day after the murders occurred. Lucas told the officers that he and an uncle went to Jessie's on the day of the murders and took the Misskelleys some BBQ chicken. According to Lucas, Jessie Jr. wasn't there, but Jessie Sr. told him that Jessie had went to W Memphis w/ some teenagers. Lucas then told the officers that the next day, he went over to Jessie's house and that he and Jessie got their hair cut by Stephanie Dollar. After the hair cuts, Jessie told Buddy everything. Jessie even gave Buddy the shoes he was wearing when the boys were killed which Buddy readily handed over to police.
Suddenly, the West Memphis police had the technology to video tape an interrogation, something they couldn't do with Jessie on June 3, 1993. I went to the Police Department and watched the video of Buddy's statement. The statement seemed strange to me, a poor attempt by Mr. Lucas to give the police something to corroborate Jessie's statement. After the tape was over, Officer Ridge readily admitted to me that as soon as Buddy finished his statement, he refused to take a polygraph exam to confirm same, and even recanted everything he said on the tape. I went to Jessie Sr.'s and asked him about the chicken. He said he Buddy and his uncle never brought him any chicken. Buddy's uncle also denied delivering any chicken, and Stephanie Dollar said she did not cut Buddy's hair on May 6, 1993.
Ron Lax tracked down Buddy, and he and I took a statement from Buddy, on video tape. Buddy said the police threatened him and told him he would go to jail if he didn't tell them about Jessie doing the murders. Buddy said he made up the story to keep from going to jail and that he "hated to have to lie on Jessie" but he was scared of the cops. Buddy said Jessie had given him some tennis shoes long before the murders ever took place, and the shoes that he gave police were not even the ones Jessie had loaned him. When the police took the shoes, they gave Buddy a brand new pair of boots. Buddy told Ron and myself that he was glad to tell us the real story.
When I asked Jessie about Buddy, he said that he hadn't seen Buddy in a long time, and that Buddy was real dumb. Jessie said Buddy was in "special education" in school. If Jessie thought he was slow then you can imagine how slow he really was. We arranged for Buddy to be represented by an attorney, and he was not hassled by the police anymore. When prosecutors learned of his recantation, they did not call him to testify. In a very difficult decision, Greg and I chose not to put Buddy on the stand at trial because he was so nervous and wouldn't have made a good witness. Further, the jury might have believed Buddy's statement to police, which the prosecution surely would have used to impeach him, and this might have been all the jury needed to convict Jessie of Capital Murder something that could have cost him his life.
In addition, Buddy's testimony might be construed by the appellate court as corroboration, something we have submitted all along they did not have. In hindsight, I still think we made the right decision in not using Buddy at trial.
G. Facts of Jessie's confession do not match facts of crime scene
1. Jessie says boys skipped school May 5, 1993.
FACT: Boys were in school all day, so was Jason Baldwin.
2. Jessie says boys were killed at noon on May 5, 1993.
FACT: Boys were in school until 3:00 p.m., and were last seen alive at about 6:30 p.m. ME says time of death was 1:00 TO 5:00 a.m. on May 6th, 1993. Jessie worked with Ricky Deese until about 12:30 p.m.
3. Jessie says boys were raped (sodomized).
FACT: Medical examiner says no trauma to boys anuses, something that would have been there if they were raped.
4. Jessie says Jason castrated Christopher Byers with a single swing of a knife.
FACT: Medical examiner says that the penis of Byers was methodically skinned by someone with extensive knowledge of anatomy and the process would have taken some time to complete even under laboratory conditions.
Update: The mutilation was not skillful or meticulous as Peretti said. It was crudely done. This is still quite inconsistent with Misskelley's confession.
5. Jessie says that the boys were tied up with a brown rope.
FACT: The boys were bound with their own shoestrings.
6. Jessie says the boys were beaten with a big ol' stick and cut with a knife.
FACT: No blood was found at the scene, and ME says those injuries could not be inflicted with out a great deal of blood loss. (This leads on to believe that the boys were killed elsewhere and their bodies dumped in the creek. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that search teams were combing the woods that night walked all over the spot where the bodies were recovered.)
Update: Brent Turvey's Profile of the case corroborates our belief that the boys were killed elsewhere.
7. Jessie says Damien choked one of the boys with a big ol' stick.
FACT: Medical Examiner says none of the boys had choking or strangulation injuries.
These are just a few of the most obvious inconsistencies.
G. What the experts tell us
1. The defense retained the services of two well known experts who are recognized as being the tops in their field, Dr. Richard Ofshe and Mr. Warren Holmes.
2. Background on retention of experts:
a. Richard Ofshe:
1. Ron Lax told us about Dr. Richard Ofshe. An attorney friend of Ron's in California recommended Ofshe to Ron for use in Damien's trial as an expert on the occult. Ofshe won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the Synanon Cult in California. Ofshe has a second area of expertise, False Confessions, and Ron suggested we talk to Dr. Ofshe. I called Ofshe, at the University of California in Berkeley, and explained that I thought Jessie had falsely confessed to the homicides. I further explained that I was appointed by the Court and had no money with which to pay him. This did not deter Ofshe. He asked about evidence against Jessie, independent of the confession, and I informed him there was none. He agreed to look over the transcript of the confession, which I Fed-Exed him that day.
About a week later, Ofshe phoned me and informed me that Jessie's confession was the worst false confession that he had ever seen, and that he felt Jessie was innocent. Ofshe's testimony is part of the trial transcript and is very, very compelling evidence of Jessie's innocence. Ofshe, like myself is absolutely convinced of Jessie's innocence.
From almost the beginning, I wanted to have the polygraph test Jessie had on June 3, 1993, looked over by another expert. The lawyer in me was hesitant though because I was afraid I might not like the results of the independent analysis. When I discussed this with Dr. Ofshe, he told me, "Don't be afraid, Dan, your client is innocent." That's when I called Warren Holmes in Miami.
b. Warren Holmes
1. I read about Warren Holmes in a Florida case I was researching regarding recordation of interrogations. The case cited Mr. Holmes tremendous experience in the area of polygraphs which includes the following:
a. Mr. Holmes is a consultant to the FBI, the Texas Rangers, the Royal Mounted Canadian Police.
b. Mr. Holmes conducted polygraph examinations in the assassination of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as Watergate.
c. Mr. Holmes worked on the William Kennedy Smith case, the Boston Strangler case, and the Hampton Case from Louisiana.
d. He has over 39 years experience as a homicide detective and a polygraph examiner.
2. When I called Mr. Holmes, I explained to him that I had been appointed to represent an indigent kid in Arkansas charged with killing three boys. I explained to him that I had no money to pay him, but that I really needed his help because I felt my client was innocent. Mr. Holmes finally agreed to look over the polygraph charts from Jessie's polygraph.
3. About a week later, Mr. Holmes phoned me and told me that Jessie had only showed signs of deception on one question. The drug question. Jessie had passed all the questions about the homicides, showing no signs of deception on the charts. It was clear that Officer Durham had lied to Jessie, and that Jessie had falsely confessed in large part because he thought the W. Memphis police had this machine that was telling him "his brain was lying to them." This altered Jessie dim view of reality, and he felt that the only way he could get away from his interrogators was to tell them what they wanted to hear.
4. Mr. Holmes has never been paid for help in our case. The State Of Arkansas reimbursed him the two thousand dollars or so of his personal funds spent flying to Arkansas to testify.
5. Dr. Ofshe did receive some reimbursement of his travel expenses. This did not even come close to reimbursing him for all his expenses.
H. What the jury was not allowed to hear
1. Testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe
a. The Trial judge refused to allow Dr. Ofshe to give all of his opinions with regard to Jessie's case. In short, he was not allowed to tell the jury that, in his opinion, Jessie's confession was a product of police coercion. This despite Dr. Ofshe being allowed to testify to the same issue in Courts around the Country. We made a proffer of what his anticipated testimony would have been, so the Arkansas Supreme Court will be able to determine its admissibility on appeal. Click here to read Dr. Ofshe's testimony.
2. Testimony of Warren Holmes
a. The trial judge refused to allow Mr. Holmes to testify in front of the jury about the results of Jessie's polygraph exam, stating that it was inadmissible. The Court did permit him to testify about interrogation techniques in general which he did.
http://web.archive.org/web/200610010242 ... 102&page=1
FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY WARREN D HOLMES
It is the opinion of this examiner, based on an analysis of the polygraph charts from the examination of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. that there were no pronounced physiological reactions indicative of deception at the points on the polygraph charts where he was asked the pertinent test questions. The test results, in the opinion of this examiner, do not corroborate any contention that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. was criminally involved in the death of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, or Steve Branch.
This testimony was crucial to an acquittal for Jessie.
This testimony of both these experts was absolutely crucial to Jessie's defense. When the Judge refused to allow the jury to hear this, it crippled our defense severely. I am convinced that had the jury heard this testimony, Jessie would have been acquitted.
My belief is based on the following:
1. After both Holmes and Ofshe testified at trial, members of the media, and other spectators told Greg and I that they felt we had won the case because their testimony was so compelling. Just think what their reaction might have been had they known everything.
2. We learned, after the trial, that the first vote the jury took in the jury room was 8 for conviction, 4 for acquittal. Despite the limitation the Court imposed on us, we were able to convince 4 jurors he was innocent. We only needed one strong willed juror for a hung-jury and ultimate mistrial, which would have been the next best thing to an acquittal. The 8 wore down the 4, however, and they reached a compromise verdict. Although, we didn't get an acquittal, we were fortunate enough to avoid a capital murder conviction, and thus the death penalty.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree I don't think it's over yet either, great post.
Godfather.
Such as?
Other than the confessions, there's
1) plastic Road Runner petro - Echols worked next door to Road Runner, and the bag contained a fiber similar to a fiber found on Michael Moore, similar to fiber on a shirt owned by Echols
2) failed polygraphs by all 3
3) ice axe connected to Baldwin consistent with wounds on the victims, also consistent with the 'swinging knife' referenced in one of Misskelley's confessions
4) DNA on necklace owned by Echols consistent with DNA profiles of Echols, Baldwin, and Stevie Branch
5) luminol blood evidence
6) Echols statement to the police that the whoever did this crime urinated in the mouths of the boys, a week before autopsy revealed urine in the stomachs of 2 of the victims
7) DNA profile evidence on ligatures is not exculpatory to any of the WM3
8) Echols medical records indicate serious psychiatric history
all of this is in the file, and yes I know about problems with polygraphs and confessions - I'm an attorney myself - I'm just saying that the totality of what I've read, changed my personal opinion about the case.
1) The defense counsel had presented their own fiber witness who disputed the similarity of the red fiber. It was shown that these fibers could have been matched to any number of items available for purchase at a local department store. Despite the fact that these fibers showed inconclusive results, they were still presented as evidence to tie Jason and Damien to the crime.
2) The only part of the lie detector Jessie failed was the question about drug use. No one has ever found the actual results of Damien's polygraph to my knowlege. Perhaps this is why the results have never been reviewed by an expert....
3) It is my personal opinion that the ice axe was/is no longer in evidence or the state felt it would look so ridiculous that it was missed, and they had been so sure it was the Baldwin knife that a jury would not take it seriously.
4) Can you show me where the prosecution at anytime has brought this "evidence" to the courts? They haven't lol Nothing came back conclusive or even slightly incriminating.
5) Luminol findings? Give me a break...
At the west bank of the stream bed, to the right of some trees, an area gave positive
reaction. It was explained by the Police Department that this was where two of the
victims were placed when they were recovered from the stream bed.
In the stream bed, below the described (at one time) water line, positive luminol tests
indicated where one of the victims was found in the water as related by the West
Memphis Police Department. *of course there was findings below the water line*
North of this point luminol tests gave positive reaction to a large area of
concentration (described by West Memphis Police Department where the third victims
was placed upon recovery from the water).
6) Echols is the one who wanted the urine to be tested to once more prove his innocence!
Here is a list of the other items the defendent wanted tested to prove his innocence:
-- foreign hairs recovered from the victims' bodies and clothing;
-- tissue on the ligatures used to bind the victims;
-- oral, nasal, anal, and penile swabs taken from the victims;
-- fingernail scrapings taken from the victims;
-- all hairs recovered from the crime scene;
-- urine which was contained in the stomachs of two of the victims;
-- a knife found in the ditch where the victims' bodies were recovered;
-- cigarette butts found in a plastic pill bottle near the crime scene;
-- contents of a bag found near the crime scene, containing, inter alia, items of clothing and two razors;
-- a cotton rope found at the crime scene;
-- the white sheets in which the victims' bodies were transported to the Medical Examiner's Office;
-- the white paper on which the victims' clothing was dried before being examined;
-- the knife belonging to John Mark Byers admitted as Defense Exhibit Number E6 at trial;
-- the DNA extract obtained from the John Mark Byers knife by Genetic Design, the laboratory to which it was submitted in 1994;
-- two knives recovered from suspect Richard Cummings;
-- tissue (item Q37) recovered from one of suspect Cummings' knives;
-- the head hair fragments recovered from the handle of a knife found near the crime scene;
-- any other knife recovered in the course of the investigation of this offense;
There are additional items which Echols would like to request be DNA tested, or otherwise scientifically tested, now as well. In additional to the "green vegetable-like material" referenced below, those items are:
1. All of the victims' clothing, including shoes, should be DNA tested.
2. The wooden planks removed from the tree fort near the crime scene should be DNA tested.
3. The victims' shoelaces should be measured to determine which black shoelace was apparently cut in half to be used as a ligature. The remaining, non-ligature portion of that cut shoe lace should then be fiber tested for comparison to other fiber evidence in the case.
4. All remaining biological extracts held at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory or elsewhere, including 'skin cuticles' from the ligatures, should be DNA tested.
5. Various items of physical evidence from the crime scene should be checked for prints and DNA tested: sheriff's badge, bike reflector lights, bicycles, ice pick, cigarette packets (or other containers) and cigarette butts, child's wallet, hook and rope, and all wooden sticks.
6. All hair retrieved from the crime scene should be DNA tested. With respect to the two auburn beard hairs recovered, we request that only one of them be tested in order to preserve the other one for future testing, if necessary.
7. The white sheets in which the victims' bodies were transported to the Medical Examiner's Office, and the white paper on which the victims' clothing was dried before being examined, should be DNA tested.
8. A number of other potential items to be addressed with the Attorney General's Office directly in the meet-and-confer session requested below.
UGH....I'm too tired at this point to argue that we were all teenagers at one point. I'm sure I could have been diagnosed with having serious psychiatric issues too :roll:
Leaving is for the answering machine.
Thanks for this info.
I agree that it's complicated. But I still haven't seen any actual direct evidence. Nothing in your list is evidence that these three committed this crime. Nothing.
#6 is the only thing that might be incriminating, but I haven't seen a source for that. Would you mind posting it, please?