Never once in the last 5 years...All the little documentaries I have watched...60 minutes?? 20/20?? Blah Blah Blah....All the little news specials on the West Memphis 3...
Never once did they EVER bring up Damiens mental history...
Never once did they actually bring up the court transcripts...
Never once did they bring up Jesse confessing with a lawyer present....
All they said was "These were 3 kids who listened to heavy metal and dressed different"
Which is nothing but PURE HORSESHIT!!!!!
Thanks for actually taking the time to read Damiens mental history.
So, by your estimation, people who agree with you have read the mental history & people who disagree with you haven't?? :roll: No wonder you consider Jessie's mental capacity to be normal.
Never once in the last 5 years...All the little documentaries I have watched...60 minutes?? 20/20?? Blah Blah Blah....All the little news specials on the West Memphis 3...
Never once did they EVER bring up Damiens mental history...
Never once did they actually bring up the court transcripts...
Never once did they bring up Jesse confessing with a lawyer present....
All they said was "These were 3 kids who listened to heavy metal and dressed different"
Which is nothing but PURE HORSESHIT!!!!!
Anyone who can ignore confession after confession after confession - including a taped statement to his own attorneys in private - simply doesn't WANT to believe Misskelley
Like i've said a hundred times, I do not consider Echols, Balwin and Miskelley innocent. This is the most concerning thing to me.. Miskelleys inconsistencies and lies.. but Convicting them and sentencing to death on this shoddy confessoin is inappropraite in my opinion.
And not just in your opinion, but in the eyes of the LAW. It's fucking mystifying to me how so many people are so willing to disregard the system of justice that (when not disregarded) protects us & makes our nation great. Sad. And frightening. :(
perhaps speedy and blockhead should have tried the case then...because they clearly would have been better state's attorneys.
Lets just stick to the discussion and not get personal with one another...Is that possible?
Sound good??
Can ya handle that???
Because accusing people who claim to know about the case of being willfully ignorant of the facts whenever they disagree with you isn't getting personal at all.... :roll:
It never ceases to amaze (and sadden) me when people think if they spout the same bullshit over & over & over again - loudly & with a condescending, assholeish attitude - then that will make it true - regardless of things like facts, logic, understanding, basic analytical skills, etc. It makes it impossible to move forward with a reasonable discussion - and it makes me afraid to ever be judged by a jury of my "peers".
Anyone who can ignore confession after confession after confession - including a taped statement to his own attorneys in private - simply doesn't WANT to believe Misskelley
Or maybe it has something to do with the following?:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... eedom.html
'...Jessie, a high-school dropout, had been in special ed throughout school. He’d come to the police station voluntarily, and police had questioned him—with no parent or lawyer present—for close to eight hours. Only two brief sections of his account, totaling less than one hour, were recorded—and I found even those parts troubling.
Jessie stated he’d met Damien and Jason in the woods where the children’s bodies were later found. He said he’d watched as Damien and Jason beat and stabbed the boys “and started screwing them and stuff.” Ultimately, Jessie said, he had helped in the murders by holding one of the victims.
Police knew the boys were last seen alive after 5 p.m. Yet in the recordings, Jessie started out saying the killings took place “early in the morning.” Police knew the boys were in school all day. Even on the taped sections, Jessie gradually changed the time to “around noon,” then “five or six,” finally settling for: “It was starting to get dark.” The medical examiner found no evidence that any had been raped.
The local prosecutor, John Fogleman, had based three charges of capital murder on Jessie’s vague and contradictory statement. A day after making his statement, Jessie recanted it.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,822
I just dont underastand why you cant accept that the scene was handled poorly. The entire case was handled poorly. Yes, there are many, many biased opinions on this case, but in the end, the way evidence was handled was a joke and the authorities fucked up continuously.
Again, Echols and Miskelley were VERY fucked up kids. No denying that. But what was used at trail was a sham and did not warrant a guilty verdict. If those copes/detectives had done their job better, maybe, just maybe Echols would still be in jail. I dont know why you keep dismissing that. the Shit job the authorities did to implicate Echols is exactly what set him free. You should be bashing these authorities with equal conviction.
Who says I am not, has anyone asked that question?
What specific evidence was handled poorly.
Its funny how you complain that I am dismissing the detectives jobs,
Yet everyone in here is dismissing multiple confessions, changes in stories (time of murder) 7 times, The fact that they fabricated/lied about all their alibis... You can take the evidence piece by piece and argue it, but if you put this together as a whole and look at it from the point of view, time/place/lying about alibis/whereabouts/ its clear it was them. (my opinion)
how about the very basic foundation of our legal system. Its called "innocent until PROVEN guilty" I know, I know it seems to have been flipped on its head at some point. But it is still there.
the burden here is not on these now not so young men, but on law enforcement and the prosecutors to PROVE beyond a REASONABLE doubt , with hard PHYSICAL evidence that these guys are guilty.
Until then , we all have our OPINION one way or the other.
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
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.
You seem to be saying one should never trust the judgement of another person, Godather. Is there no one in the world whose judgement you trust, whose knowledge/opinions/beliefs you would take into the slightest bit of consideration when forming your opinions??
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.
Or maybe it has something to do with the following?:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... eedom.html
'...Jessie, a high-school dropout, had been in special ed throughout school. He’d come to the police station voluntarily, and police had questioned him—with no parent or lawyer present—for close to eight hours. Only two brief sections of his account, totaling less than one hour, were recorded—and I found even those parts troubling.
Jessie stated he’d met Damien and Jason in the woods where the children’s bodies were later found. He said he’d watched as Damien and Jason beat and stabbed the boys “and started screwing them and stuff.” Ultimately, Jessie said, he had helped in the murders by holding one of the victims.
Police knew the boys were last seen alive after 5 p.m. Yet in the recordings, Jessie started out saying the killings took place “early in the morning.” Police knew the boys were in school all day. Even on the taped sections, Jessie gradually changed the time to “around noon,” then “five or six,” finally settling for: “It was starting to get dark.” The medical examiner found no evidence that any had been raped.
The local prosecutor, John Fogleman, had based three charges of capital murder on Jessie’s vague and contradictory statement. A day after making his statement, Jessie recanted it.
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...
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.
ETA: Just because none of us have the time to wade through all the case files AGAIN to disprove every kernel of shit you throw out there in hopes that it will stick, doesn't mean you are smarter or better educated about this than any of us. It means we have JOBS. And LIVES. And we are not going to waste that much time arguing with someone on a message board who has already demonstrated that he will just disregard all facts & logic one presents about an issue. If you ever presented yourself or any of your positions in a reasonable manner so we could take you seriously, we might take all the time that's needed to fully engage in this debate on your terms. But instead you twist the truth to (intentionally?) misrepresent the fact, you have demonstrated that you lack a solid understanding of even the facts that you present (and refuse to admit it), you have demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental tenants of our justice system, and you refuse to engage in a civil discussion, instead repeatedly barking your standard comeback that anyone who disagrees with you must be less educated. So WHY would any of us take the time to seriously engage you? :?
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...
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'.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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?
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?
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...
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.
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!
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,822
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?
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
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...
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.
Comments
So, by your estimation, people who agree with you have read the mental history & people who disagree with you haven't?? :roll: No wonder you consider Jessie's mental capacity to be normal.
And not just in your opinion, but in the eyes of the LAW. It's fucking mystifying to me how so many people are so willing to disregard the system of justice that (when not disregarded) protects us & makes our nation great. Sad. And frightening. :(
Because accusing people who claim to know about the case of being willfully ignorant of the facts whenever they disagree with you isn't getting personal at all.... :roll:
Or maybe it has something to do with the following?:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... eedom.html
'...Jessie, a high-school dropout, had been in special ed throughout school. He’d come to the police station voluntarily, and police had questioned him—with no parent or lawyer present—for close to eight hours. Only two brief sections of his account, totaling less than one hour, were recorded—and I found even those parts troubling.
Jessie stated he’d met Damien and Jason in the woods where the children’s bodies were later found. He said he’d watched as Damien and Jason beat and stabbed the boys “and started screwing them and stuff.” Ultimately, Jessie said, he had helped in the murders by holding one of the victims.
Police knew the boys were last seen alive after 5 p.m. Yet in the recordings, Jessie started out saying the killings took place “early in the morning.” Police knew the boys were in school all day. Even on the taped sections, Jessie gradually changed the time to “around noon,” then “five or six,” finally settling for: “It was starting to get dark.” The medical examiner found no evidence that any had been raped.
The local prosecutor, John Fogleman, had based three charges of capital murder on Jessie’s vague and contradictory statement. A day after making his statement, Jessie recanted it.
the burden here is not on these now not so young men, but on law enforcement and the prosecutors to PROVE beyond a REASONABLE doubt , with hard PHYSICAL evidence that these guys are guilty.
Until then , we all have our OPINION one way or the other.
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
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.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...
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.
ETA: Just because none of us have the time to wade through all the case files AGAIN to disprove every kernel of shit you throw out there in hopes that it will stick, doesn't mean you are smarter or better educated about this than any of us. It means we have JOBS. And LIVES. And we are not going to waste that much time arguing with someone on a message board who has already demonstrated that he will just disregard all facts & logic one presents about an issue. If you ever presented yourself or any of your positions in a reasonable manner so we could take you seriously, we might take all the time that's needed to fully engage in this debate on your terms. But instead you twist the truth to (intentionally?) misrepresent the fact, you have demonstrated that you lack a solid understanding of even the facts that you present (and refuse to admit it), you have demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental tenants of our justice system, and you refuse to engage in a civil discussion, instead repeatedly barking your standard comeback that anyone who disagrees with you must be less educated. So WHY would any of us take the time to seriously engage you? :?
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'.
So, how exactly do you know this? Both about Ed and also about Blockhead?
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...
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.
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.
I think you mean 'surely', not 'surly'.
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.
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?
Observation.
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...
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.
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!
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?
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
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...
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.