Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed
Options
Comments
-
Jessie Misskelley's 'confessions':
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... ess_6.html
Dan Stidham was able to secure the expert testimonies of Dr Richard Ofshe and Warren Homes. Dr Ofshe, a Pulitzer Prize winning social psychologist and an expert on false and coerced confessions, believed after reading the confession, listening to the tape and interviewing Jessie Misskelley, that Jessie’s confession was a coerced compliant and false confession. The reasons given for this conclusion were:
Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie’s identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
That many areas of Jessie’s confession were not supported by the facts.
Examples of incorrect information in Jason's "confession:"
Jessie stated that the victims and Jason Baldwin were not at school when in fact they were proven to have been in attendance
Jessie stated that the victims were bound with rope when in fact they were bound with their own shoelaces
Jessie stated that one boy was choked with a stick when the medical examiners report stated that there was no evidence of strangulation
Jessie stated that the boys were anally raped when in fact the medical examiner had found no evidence of this occurring
Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.
Dr Ofshe was not permitted to state all of his opinion during the trial as Judge Burnett had previously ruled that Jessie’s confession had been voluntary and Ofshe’s testimony in this regard would directly contradict the court’s previous ruling. Burnett also stated that such a testimony would give an expert witness the power to determine whether the accused was guilty or innocent which was solely the jury’s domain. Finally, the jury only heard that Ofshe had a lot of experience with coerced confessions and it was possible for police to obtain a confession from someone who was in fact innocent, anything more specific was not allowed.
Warren Holmes, an expert in lie detection testing and interrogation who has studied and worked in this field for over thirty years, agreed to testify for the defense after he was approached by Daniel Stidham, despite the knowledge that he would not be paid for his services and only his expenses would be reimbursed.
At a hearing prior to the trial, Judge Burnett ruled that Warren Holmes could not testify regarding the polygraph examination itself. As polygraph test results are not admissible evidence he would only allow Holmes to testify to his experience and qualifications and to give an analyses of the interview techniques used during Jessie Misskelley’s interrogation.
When Holmes analysed the polygraph test conducted by the WMPD on Jessie Misskelley he found that Jessie’s responses to the questions relating to the murders indicated that Jessie was truthful in his answers and in fact did not have any knowledge of them. The WMPD interrogating officers’ statement to Jessie that he had in fact lied, indicated that they had not conducted or interpreted the results of the tests properly. The result of being informed that he was lying would have greatly contributed to Jessie’s sense of helplessness in the situation making him more likely to comply with the demand for a confession by the police.
According to Holmes there are a number of indicators which will validate to the investigators that a suspect’s confession is true.
In a true confession the suspect will often give the police information about the crime that the police do not already know.
If a confession is true the suspect gives information that fits with the real evidence of the crime.
A true confession is usually given in a narrative form including many incidental details about the situation surrounding the crime which can be corroborated by police later
In a true confession, if the investigators make an incorrect supposition about the crime, the suspect will correct them.
In a true confession, there is no need to correct the suspect for contradictions in their story.
In a true confession there is no need for coaching or leading questions in order to elicit information.
Homes believed that there were many instances in Jessie’s confession where these criteria were not met. He was especially concerned that Jessie was wrong about the times and the type of ligatures used. Both of these factors should have meant a great deal to him. Nor does Jessie mention anything about his feelings at the time of the crimes or afterwards, or talk about the things that were said by himself, the other perpetrators or the victims. Jessie’s confession was elicited by a series of highly suggestive questions by the interrogating officers and was not given in a narrative form.
The testimony of these two witnesses was the strongest evidence that the defense had to refute the prosecution’s case which was built solely upon the weight of Jessie’s confession. Without this expert opinion, Jessie’s case was severely hampered.0 -
Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
That's over 12 hours.
Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.
Nothing amiss there then! :roll:0 -
Byrnzie wrote:Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
That's over 12 hours.
Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.
Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
Not to mention he didn't have legal representation the entire time.Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self0 -
Blockhead, you started another thread, which was subsequently closed, wherein you accused Eddie Vedder of lying.
You accused him of lying because in a playbill you received at a 2009 concert were 'contained...3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)'.
It's been shown now that YOU were lying about Jessie's I.Q.
What's your response to that?
Secondly, YOU lied about the time Misskelley spent under police interrogation, and his subsequent confession, not being 12 hours.
What's your response to that?
And lastly, what's this 'motive' that you speak of? What 'motive' was mentioned in the playbill, and how does it suggest that Eddie Vedder is a liar?0 -
Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead, you started another thread, which was subsequently closed, wherein you accused Eddie Vedder of lying.
You accused him of lying because in a playbill you received at a 2009 concert were 'contained...3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)'.
It's been shown now that YOU were lying about Jessie's I.Q.
What's your response to that?
Secondly, YOU lied about the time Misskelley spent under police interrogation, and his subsequent confession, not being 12 hours.
What's your response to that?
And lastly, what's this 'motive' that you speak of? What 'motive' was mentioned in the playbill, and how does it suggest that Eddie Vedder is a liar?
I think the 3rd thing he quoted that Eddie "lied" about had something to do with the playbill saying Damien had dark hair. Can you believe the NERVE of Eddie Vedder?? He thinks that just because he's a famous musician he possesses the ability to assess the color of Damien's hair!
0 -
The day before the murders, Tuesday May 4, 1993, Jason Baldwin traded 3 t shirts for a curved “throwing” knife, and a mountain climbing ice pick. On Friday May 8, 1993 Jason had his little brother Matthew return those items, he had kept hidden under his bed for the last few days, claiming “somebody was going to accuse him of using them.”Byrnzie wrote:
Jessie's third confession, after having been convicted, still, for the most part, the important part, the crime itself, did not agree with the evidence:
Now, look carefully at this exchange:
DAVIS: Ok. Now what did Jas, what did you see Jason and Damen do to the other two (2)?
MISSKELLEY: Well Damien screw one of'm.
DAVIS: When your saying he was going to screw him, what did you see him do?
Davis knows that there is no evidence of sexual penetration, so, when Jessie says that Damien "screw one of'm," he quickly changes it to "going to screw him."
I could go on through the testimony and point out how often it appears that Jessie had been coached by someone prior to making this statement, and was still having to be corrected throughout the statement, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence. Read through the statement and see for yourself. It's true that this statement contains more information that agrees with the police theory at the time than his other statements did. However, it is still full of inaccuracies that just wouldn't be there if Jessie had actually been at the scene of those murders.
Don't miss the testimony about the knife. Jessie describes a "lock-blade" knife, not the serrated knife of the famous grapefruit experiment. Also, there is a statement by someone - I think his name is Sam Dwyer (I'll find out and edit if I'm wrong) - that says that Jason's mother threw a serrated blade knife into the lake before the murders because she didn't want Jason to have such a knife.
Remember, in the trial, the prosecution carefully demonstrated how the wounds were caused by a serrated knife? That's just not true. In the upcoming evidentiary hearing, evidence from forensic pathologists, one of whom literally wrote the book on forensic pathology (unlike the State's Peretti who couldn't even pass his certification test, in three tries), will be introduced to indicate that those alleged knife wounds were actual post mortem animal predation wounds.
This final statement of Jessie's is, in short, still full of inaccuracies. Also of interest is the initial exchange where it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that, by his belligerent responses, Jessie has come to distrust his attorneys, especially Stidham.
The prosecution had been questioning Jessie while he was incarcerated, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They planted the idea into his highly-impressionable mind that his attorneys are not his friends. After all, listening to them landed him in prison, right? So, they finally convinced him (they think) to testify. They now need a new statement, one that agrees more closely with the "facts" in the case. This statement is the culmination of their continued pressure. In the end, as we all know, Jessie didn't testify. When he was able (after the statement was made) to talk to his dad, his dad told him to tell the truth.
The truth is that Jessie was not at the scene of the crime, or at the discovery site. Neither was Damien or Jason.
Multiple confessions. Many POST conviction.
How do you explain that CR? How do you explain him confessing after he was convicted, on the record, after his attorney BEGGED him not to? Why is he STILL confessing?
Because of his limited mental abilities, Jessie is easily manipulated. After his conviction, LE worked on Jessie, attempting to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They had him convinced that his attorneys were not there to help him. There were only two post conviction statements. The first was in the car on the way to prison. This type of statement is very common in someone of Jessie's IQ. It was an attempt to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear so he (Jessie) could go home. The second post conviction statement, the one made over the objection of his attorneys, was, as I said before, after LE had been talking to Jessie, without notifying his attorneys, in an attempt to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. As you probably know, Jessie did not testify against Damien and Jason because he simply couldn't continue telling his false story any longer. He has not "continued to confess." He has maintained his innocence since approximately one month after his conviction.
How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?
No forensic evidence has connected the Evan Williams bottle to any of the three convicted young men. There is nothing to explain. Unless some forensic evidence connecting Jessie or one of the other teens to the bottle is produced, the fact that an Evan Williams bottle was found (after searching under several overpasses) proves nothing. It is a common brand used by many homeless people, and the fact that Jessie mentioned drinking that brand and discarding a bottle in the area is only relevant if the bottle found can be forensically linked to him.
Why does anyone give a false confession?
Oh, I forgot...you don't care.
On May 11, 1993 Billy and Kenny Newell turned the weapons over to WMPD
http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/the- ... should-be/0 -
WOW, you posted a link and you didn't even read it.Byrnzie wrote:Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
That's over 12 hours.
Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.
Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
He was not in police custoday until 10AM.
He was interrogated after 5pm.
I don't know about you but that is not 12 hours and Its not 8 hours...
Maybe you should read what you actually post.0 -
Maybe you should read how many times he was read it rights... And Jesse was not stranger to the law/rights/lawyers...The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:Byrnzie wrote:Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
That's over 12 hours.
Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.
Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
Not to mention he didn't have legal representation the entire time.0 -
ummm. You do realize that this is a false statement right? they did luminol tests. And found plenty...Byrnzie wrote:Jessie Misskelley's 'confessions':
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... ess_6.html
Dan Stidham was able to secure the expert testimonies of Dr Richard Ofshe and Warren Homes. Dr Ofshe, a Pulitzer Prize winning social psychologist and an expert on false and coerced confessions, believed after reading the confession, listening to the tape and interviewing Jessie Misskelley, that Jessie’s confession was a coerced compliant and false confession. The reasons given for this conclusion were:
Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie’s identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
That many areas of Jessie’s confession were not supported by the facts.
Examples of incorrect information in Jason's "confession:"
Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.[/b]
Dr Ofshe was not permitted to state all of his opinion during the trial as Judge Burnett had previously ruled that Jessie’s confession had been voluntary and Ofshe’s testimony in this regard would directly contradict the court’s previous ruling. Burnett also stated that such a testimony would give an expert witness the power to determine whether the accused was guilty or innocent which was solely the jury’s domain. Finally, the jury only heard that Ofshe had a lot of experience with coerced confessions and it was possible for police to obtain a confession from someone who was in fact innocent, anything more specific was not allowed.
Warren Holmes, an expert in lie detection testing and interrogation who has studied and worked in this field for over thirty years, agreed to testify for the defense after he was approached by Daniel Stidham, despite the knowledge that he would not be paid for his services and only his expenses would be reimbursed.
At a hearing prior to the trial, Judge Burnett ruled that Warren Holmes could not testify regarding the polygraph examination itself. As polygraph test results are not admissible evidence he would only allow Holmes to testify to his experience and qualifications and to give an analyses of the interview techniques used during Jessie Misskelley’s interrogation.
When Holmes analysed the polygraph test conducted by the WMPD on Jessie Misskelley he found that Jessie’s responses to the questions relating to the murders indicated that Jessie was truthful in his answers and in fact did not have any knowledge of them. The WMPD interrogating officers’ statement to Jessie that he had in fact lied, indicated that they had not conducted or interpreted the results of the tests properly. The result of being informed that he was lying would have greatly contributed to Jessie’s sense of helplessness in the situation making him more likely to comply with the demand for a confession by the police.
According to Holmes there are a number of indicators which will validate to the investigators that a suspect’s confession is true.
In a true confession the suspect will often give the police information about the crime that the police do not already know.
If a confession is true the suspect gives information that fits with the real evidence of the crime.
A true confession is usually given in a narrative form including many incidental details about the situation surrounding the crime which can be corroborated by police later
In a true confession, if the investigators make an incorrect supposition about the crime, the suspect will correct them.
In a true confession, there is no need to correct the suspect for contradictions in their story.
In a true confession there is no need for coaching or leading questions in order to elicit information.
Homes believed that there were many instances in Jessie’s confession where these criteria were not met. He was especially concerned that Jessie was wrong about the times and the type of ligatures used. Both of these factors should have meant a great deal to him. Nor does Jessie mention anything about his feelings at the time of the crimes or afterwards, or talk about the things that were said by himself, the other perpetrators or the victims. Jessie’s confession was elicited by a series of highly suggestive questions by the interrogating officers and was not given in a narrative form.
The testimony of these two witnesses was the strongest evidence that the defense had to refute the prosecution’s case which was built solely upon the weight of Jessie’s confession. Without this expert opinion, Jessie’s case was severely hampered.0 -
the quote from the Playbill says:Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead, you started another thread, which was subsequently closed, wherein you accused Eddie Vedder of lying.
You accused him of lying because in a playbill you received at a 2009 concert were 'contained...3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)'.
It's been shown now that YOU were lying about Jessie's I.Q.
What's your response to that?
Secondly, YOU lied about the time Misskelley spent under police interrogation, and his subsequent confession, not being 12 hours.
What's your response to that?
And lastly, what's this 'motive' that you speak of? What 'motive' was mentioned in the playbill, and how does it suggest that Eddie Vedder is a liar?
"Came after 12 hours of interrogation" Please re-read your link. Explain to me how 10am to 5pm is 12 hours.
It is a blantant lie...
My response about his iq is, I was not lying, you don't seem to understand IQ tests. Let me break it down for you:
The Wechsler tests are much more complicated than looking at composite scores. You can not make clinical interpretations from those composites unless they are ALL consistent with one another.
All of these subtest likely would not have been used. A standard battery consists of 10 subtests
Wechsler (WAIS-IV) now splits the subtests into 4 composites. Verbal, Performance, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. This was changed because research indicated that the old test was not properly placing subtests within the correct composites. So things like attention, concentration, and executive functioning were being measured under the verbal composite improperly. So if an individual has ADHD or learning disabilities, the Verbal score is invalid. Therefore the FSIQ is also invalid. You must use a General Abilities Index or look at the subtests themselves and look for strengths and weaknesses in order to describe abilities separately and not as a whole.
Standard
Verbal: Similarities, Vocabulary, Information
Perceptual: Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Visual Puzzles
Working Memory: Arithmetic, Digit Span
Processing Speed: Coding, Symbol Search
The discrepancy in his scores likely indicate a neurological deficit, such as learning disability or language deficit. This only means that he may have difficulty with academic achievement and academic language... has nothing to do with everyday reasoning. Therefore the Performance score is the best indicator of his true intelligence. When you have such a huge difference in composite scores, the FSIQ is irrelevant...
Also, his earlier tests would have been a children's version and is less heavily weighted on learned information, which would make sense considering his special education service status.
Jessie is capable of at least an 88 nonverbal. This is the most accurate score because it removes culture and language from the equation. Culture and language are learned and come from experience (that's achievement, not intelligence). Working Memory and Processing Speed are related to attention, concentration, and planning and organization. This may make someone slower at the draw, but does not inhibit the ability to process. He's demonstrated that he processes within the low average to average range within confidence intervals0 -
Blockhead wrote:
WOW, you posted a link and you didn't even read it.Byrnzie wrote:Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
That's over 12 hours.
Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.
Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
He was not in police custoday until 10AM.
He was interrogated after 5pm.
I don't know about you but that is not 12 hours and Its not 8 hours...
Maybe you should read what you actually post.
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
Blockhead wrote:the quote from the Playbill says:
"Came after 12 hours of interrogation" Please re-read your link. Explain to me how 10am to 5pm is 12 hours.
It is a blantant lie...
He was in police custody from 10am to at least 9pm.Blockhead wrote:My response about his iq is, I was not lying, you don't seem to understand IQ tests. Let me break it down for you:
The Wechsler tests are much more complicated than looking at composite scores. You can not make clinical interpretations from those composites unless they are ALL consistent with one another.
All of these subtest likely would not have been used. A standard battery consists of 10 subtests
Wechsler (WAIS-IV) now splits the subtests into 4 composites. Verbal, Performance, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. This was changed because research indicated that the old test was not properly placing subtests within the correct composites. So things like attention, concentration, and executive functioning were being measured under the verbal composite improperly. So if an individual has ADHD or learning disabilities, the Verbal score is invalid. Therefore the FSIQ is also invalid. You must use a General Abilities Index or look at the subtests themselves and look for strengths and weaknesses in order to describe abilities separately and not as a whole.
Standard
Verbal: Similarities, Vocabulary, Information
Perceptual: Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Visual Puzzles
Working Memory: Arithmetic, Digit Span
Processing Speed: Coding, Symbol Search
The discrepancy in his scores likely indicate a neurological deficit, such as learning disability or language deficit. This only means that he may have difficulty with academic achievement and academic language... has nothing to do with everyday reasoning. Therefore the Performance score is the best indicator of his true intelligence. When you have such a huge difference in composite scores, the FSIQ is irrelevant...
Also, his earlier tests would have been a children's version and is less heavily weighted on learned information, which would make sense considering his special education service status.
Jessie is capable of at least an 88 nonverbal. This is the most accurate score because it removes culture and language from the equation. Culture and language are learned and come from experience (that's achievement, not intelligence). Working Memory and Processing Speed are related to attention, concentration, and planning and organization. This may make someone slower at the draw, but does not inhibit the ability to process. He's demonstrated that he processes within the low average to average range within confidence intervals
That's a nice cut-and-paste job. Where did you cut-and-paste it from? Why are you pretending that they are your own words, when they're clearly not?
Either way, his I.Q level was determined to be 72. You're simply cherry-picking to suit your own ends.
His 'confessions' were false confessions. He was coerced by the police into making those statements.
Even so, the 'confessions' were full of inaccuracies, that directly contradict the evidence found at the crime scene, and also contradict the time of the murders.
He has since admitted that he just told the investigators what they wanted to hear. He's also since admitted that the confessions were a lie.
The bottom line is that you have no real interest in the justice of this case at all.
You're simply using it as a means to take a contrary view to all honest and objective opinion that has been cast upon it, and using your selective cherry-picking of the facts, along with out-right lying, to antagonize people.0 -
February 1994 HearingByrnzie wrote:How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?
No forensic evidence has connected the Evan Williams bottle to any of the three convicted young men. There is nothing to explain. Unless some forensic evidence connecting Jessie or one of the other teens to the bottle is produced, the fact that an Evan Williams bottle was found (after searching under several overpasses) proves nothing. It is a common brand used by many homeless people, and the fact that Jessie mentioned drinking that brand and discarding a bottle in the area is only relevant if the bottle found can be forensically linked to him.[/i]
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html
Mr. Stidham then went back into the room, at which time he did not allow us, nor did we request or insist on having contact with his client. He went back inside and talked for another hour and came back and to paraphrase indicated that his client's story matched with the facts much better and there were a
few things we needed to do to be able to corroborate his statement.
At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client's statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.
To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, "If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened." At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.0 -
Blockhead wrote:ummm. You do realize that this is a false statement right? they did luminol tests. And found plenty...
You do realize that you need to stop lying, right?
http://www.jivepuppi.com/
'...no blood was found, in spite of one victim bleeding to death.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200707180734 ... is_dan.php
No blood at all was found at the scene. Luminol testing done at the crime scene some two weeks after the discovery of the bodies revealed the presence of possible blood at the crime scene in, and on, the ditch bank where the bodies were laid by the police after they were removed from the water. Blood seeped from the bodies unto the soil where the bodies were laid. Luminal testing is not admissible in Court because it is not scientifically reliable; (The medical examiner testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial that it would be impossible for the injuries that were inflicted on those boys to be inflicted without leaving blood at the scene.) No follow up blood test was performed.
Update: Brent Turvey's analysis reveals that most likely the boys were killed elsewhere and that they were dumped at the site where the bodies were recovered. This explains the lack of blood found at the crime scene.0 -
_ wrote:Developmentally delayed people do strange things that don't make sense, especially when under stress.
How about you explain why he confessed to another crime that didn't even happen??
As an experiment, Dan Stidham had attempted to get Jessie Misskelley to confess to an armed robbery that never occurred.
From Dan Stidham: “As part of an experiment, Dr. Wilkins and myself were able to get Jessie to confess to committing a robbery that never occurred. This was ruled inadmissible by the Court, and the jury never knew this. I often bragged that I could get Jessie to confess to killing JFK, although he wasn't even born in 1963. I am still convinced I could get him to confess to almost anything.”
That would be good stuff for the defense, Sadly no such evidence exist...
"Wilkins said that their informant had called Jessie a "little faggot" and asked if that made him mad. Jessie looked despondent. They took a break, and then told Jessie that the police were on the way. There was a long break, and Jessie reappears smoking a cigarette. He said that he got to the "shop," and got out of his dad's truck. The tape cut out and picked up again with a discussion of what happened in the police station on June 3rd."
You mean the part where Misskelley confessed to this robbery is "missing"?
haha nice try...0 -
You should probably quit posting now...Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead wrote:ummm. You do realize that this is a false statement right? they did luminol tests. And found plenty...
You do realize that you need to stop lying, right?
http://www.jivepuppi.com/
'...no blood was found, in spite of one victim bleeding to death.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200707180734 ... is_dan.php
No blood at all was found at the scene. Luminol testing done at the crime scene some two weeks after the discovery of the bodies revealed the presence of possible blood at the crime scene in, and on, the ditch bank where the bodies were laid by the police after they were removed from the water. Blood seeped from the bodies unto the soil where the bodies were laid. Luminal testing is not admissible in Court because it is not scientifically reliable; (The medical examiner testified at the Echols/Baldwin trial that it would be impossible for the injuries that were inflicted on those boys to be inflicted without leaving blood at the scene.) No follow up blood test was performed.
Update: Brent Turvey's analysis reveals that most likely the boys were killed elsewhere and that they were dumped at the site where the bodies were recovered. This explains the lack of blood found at the crime scene.
The luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. thats 5 days...
You just pasted from your source "SOME TWO WEEKS"
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_tanderson.html
From the investigative report:
The second area of blood was found in the slowly sloping area just to the east of Body
#1 on the bank. This is a portion of the bank that looks to have a slope of about 1 foot to
a 3 foot distance. East of the blood about 5 feet begins a steep slope and west of the
blood is the creek and body #1. Mr. Smith explained that a significant amount of blood
was located here and it appeared that one or more of the victims apparently lost a lot of
blood in that area.
The third area is east of Body #1 and just to the south. The area again is a slowly sloping
area with a slope of 1 foot in 2 1/2 foot. Just east of this area is another steep slope
where foot prints were located that went up to a point in the steep slope. The also was
an area where it appeared to be a significant amount of blood where one or more of the
victims may have bled a large amount.
The first three areas appeared to be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet above the bottom of the Ditch
and at the time the bodies were located were exposed above the water line by over two
feet.
The Fourth area is in the ditch just above to the north of Body #2. This area seemed to
have a large amount of blood that appeared to be where the bodys bled out while in the
water. This area would have been under water when the bodies were discovered0 -
Why do you continue to address the 1st confession, and dismiss the others, especailly post conviction...Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead wrote:Maybe you should read how many times he was read it rights... And Jesse was not stranger to the law/rights/lawyers...
And he had no representation. And his I.Q was 72.
The confessions were false, as he has since admitted.0 -
Custody = interrogated...Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead wrote:
WOW, you posted a link and you didn't even read it.Byrnzie wrote:Jessie was in police custody from 8am until at least 9pm: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
That's over 12 hours.
Only 45 minutes of his 'confession' were recorded.
Nothing amiss there then! :roll:
He was not in police custoday until 10AM.
He was interrogated after 5pm.
I don't know about you but that is not 12 hours and Its not 8 hours...
Maybe you should read what you actually post.
So he was in police custody for 11 hours. And all we have of the official 4 hour interrogation is 45 minutes that was recorded. What was he subjected to during the other 10 hours?
Dude get over it Eddie Vedder lied about simple facts...0 -
Blockhead wrote:
Why do you continue to address the 1st confession, and dismiss the others, especailly post conviction...Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead wrote:Maybe you should read how many times he was read it rights... And Jesse was not stranger to the law/rights/lawyers...
And he had no representation. And his I.Q was 72.
The confessions were false, as he has since admitted.
I haven't dismissed the later 'confessions'. If you actually bother to read what people post in-between frothing at the mouth you'll see that I addressed the issue of his later 'confessions' on the previous page of this thread. I even highlighted it in blue for your benefit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help