New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Thanks, Compassionate Reader, for clearing up the knots. I went and looked at videos (don't laugh) of a half-hitch and a square knot, and neither is some super ninja knot, which was the impression I'd had. They're actually knots even I make. And I ain't no Girl Scout... The hog-tying, though, is still bizarre (to me).
 
Jessie was alone with detectives, without parents or a lawyer present, for 4 hours 45 minutes before he made his first confession.
Misskelley wasn't alone with the detectives the whole time, as he went with Allen to visit his father to get the polygraph release form signed after the initial interview, as documented in the interview timeline. In reality there was around 3 hours of actual questioning prior to Misskelley first confessing to his presence at the murders, and the questioning was done with his father's consent.

that confession wasn't enough for an arrest warrant because he said the crime had happened in the morning
Rather, Misskelley gave conflicting accounts regarding the time of the murders in his first recorded confession, including saying "all of this stuff happened that night". But then moments later he said "I went home about noon", which suggests Misskelley had a poor understanding of time.

So they went back to him later in the afternoon to get a "clarification" statement, during which they can be blatantly heard leading Jessie to bring the time later and later until they get him to say a time after the boys were last seen alive.
The clarification statement starts out:

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Just sit there. Jessie, uh, when when you got with the with the boys and with Jason and Baldwin when you three were in the woods and then the little boys come up, about what time was it? When the boys came up to the woods?
*B01 MISSKELLEY: I would say it was about it was about five or six, five or six.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Now, did you have your watch on at the time?
*B02 MISSKELLEY: Un-uh.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: You didn't have your watch on?
*B03 MISSKELLEY: Un-uh.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Uh, alright you told me earlier around seven or eight or, wh-which time is it?
*B04 MISSKELLEY: It was seven or eight.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Are are you sh-
*B05 MISSKELLEY: I remember it was starting to get dark.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Ok, it
*B06 MISSKELLEY: I remember it was starting to get dark.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Ok, well that clears it up. I didn't know, that's what I was wondering, was it getting dark or, or what.
*B07 MISSKELLEY: We got up there at six but the boys come up when it was starting to get dark.
The only think close to "leading Jessie to bring the time later and later" is Gitchell's "alright you told me earlier around seven or eight" which would only be leading if it's a lie, but there's no evidence that it is. Besides that, Misskelley cut Gitchell off to offer "it was starting to get dark" of his own accord, twice in a row no less, which is hardly the behavior of someone being lead.

Thanks for the clarification. I went back to the wiki article out of curiosity and checked the citation on that reference, but it's referencing one of the documentaries. (I understand there are tons and tons of documents (and documentaries) relating to this case and I've barely skimmed.)
Check out Wikipedia's talk page for the entry to see the ridiculous excuse given for including the 12 hour interrogation lie and ignoring the actual documented timeline.

When one considers, rationally, Jessie's mental disability, it is easy to see (if one is familiar with the mentally challenged) just how easy it was to manipulate his statement and morph it into what the prosecution wanted to hear.
Rationally, you're engaging in supposition which lacks any actual evidence to support it. Furthermore, there's evidence against claims of Misskelley's suggestibility the form of his resistance to Stidham and Wilkins' attempt to get him to confess to a fabricated story of him robbing a convenience store.

The prosecution attempted to place that idea in the minds of the jury, but the truth is that the only "knot" used was a half-hitch.
Rather, there were two square knots along with one triple half hitch and one quadruple half hitch on Moore, two triple half hitches and two single half hitches with figure eights on Stevie Branch, and all four knots on Christopher Byers were double half hitches, as Lisa Sakevicius testified in detail regarding during the Baldwin/Echols trial.

Once it was repeated twice starting with alternating hands, making a square knot.
I'm no not expert by any stretch, but I know half hitches and square knots, and I'm at a loss as to make sense of what you've said here. Would you please elaborate?
 
Rationally, you're engaging in supposition which lacks any actual evidence to support it. Furthermore, there's evidence against claims of Misskelley's suggestibility the form of his resistance to Stidham and Wilkins' attempt to get him to confess to a fabricated story of him robbing a convenience store.

The "evidence to support" Misskelley's mental incapacity is my personal knowledge of how students with low IQ's act when questioned. Misskelley's actions when questioned are identical to those I have personally witnessed in students with documented IQ's in the lower 70's. Legally, the school could not officially release Jessie's IQ, but teachers have verified that he was in Special Education classes. From what I know about the prerequisites for entrance into an actual Special Education class (as opposed to being mainstreamed with an aide in the classroom), Jessie's IQ would have to be below 75. As to Stidham and Wilkins, yes, he initially resisted their attempts to get him to "confess" to a robbery that he didn't commit. However, they didn't harangue him for hours or use the Reid technique as LE did.


Rather, there were two square knots along with one triple half hitch and one quadruple half hitch on Moore, two triple half hitches and two single half hitches with figure eights on Stevie Branch, and all four knots on Christopher Byers were double half hitches, as Lisa Sakevicius testified in detail regarding during the Baldwin/Echols trial.

As I said, all of these knots are simply one or more half-hitches. They are not intricate knots, like sheep's shank or hangman's nooses. They are simply loops, repeated the indicated number of times.

I'm no not expert by any stretch, but I know half hitches and square knots, and I'm at a loss as to make sense of what you've said here. Would you please elaborate?

I'm simply pointing out that a square knot is two half-hitches, tied by alternating the starting hand. Sorry if you were confused.
 
That does work, until you read all his other confessions .. even after conviction :)

I think what you are missing is that a lawyer would be irate with the simple fact that someone was talking to his/her client in the first place...period. They should not have been talking to Jessie at all and they did. I know I would have been going through the roof if I found out LE talked to my client, knowing that he was already represented. I don't care what was discussed or talked about. The communication in and of itself would have pushed me over the edge.

Which confession do you mean .. we were talking about all 4 confessions, and his different motivations for the ones he made particularly after his trial, the one I quoted was to his own lawyer, who did seem rather disturbed that he was admitting guilt to HIM, and even had corroborative evidence .. *awkward* :)
 
The "evidence to support" Misskelley's mental incapacity is my personal knowledge of how students with low IQ's act when questioned.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't rightly amount to much.

Legally, the school could not officially release Jessie's IQ, but teachers have verified that he was in Special Education classes.
Have you never seen a kid do poorly on tests and wind special education when the issue is more one of being malcontent than moronic? I have, not that anecdotal evidence amounts to much.

As to Stidham and Wilkins, yes, he initially resisted their attempts to get him to "confess" to a robbery that he didn't commit.
Just initially? I mean I know Stidham and Wilkins claimed they got him to confess to the robbery on tape, but the transcript of the tape Stidham shows Misskelley resisting their attempts and Stidham eventually changing the subject.

However, they didn't harangue him for hours or use the Reid technique as LE did.
The documents suggest Misskelley wasn't even considered a suspect until he went saying he said he was present at the murders, which is hardly consistent with "assuming absolute guilt from the very beginning of the interrogation process" as explained on the page you linked or the notion that he was harangue for hours.

I'm simply pointing out that a square knot is two half-hitches, tied by alternating the starting hand. Sorry if you were confused.
Having taken the time to look up square knots and half hitches to insure I know what they are, and even going so far as strip a lace out of an old shoe and tie both around my ankle multiple times while alternating my starting hand: I'm nearly certain you're the one who's confused here.

we were talking about all 4 confessions
There's actually at least 6 documented confessions from Misskelley, the initial one on 6/3/93, 6/12/93 to Stidham, 8/19/93 again to Stidham, 2/4/94 to Clay County deputies, 2/8/94 to Stidham yet again, and 2/17/94 to prosecutors against the advice of Crow and Stidham. Beyond there's also the statement from Jessie Hurst who said Misskelley confessed to having witnessed the murders while they were in jail together shortly after Misskelley was arrested, and also a 6/7/93 Commercial Appeal article which states:

Floresca said Misskelley told her and other students the day before he was arrested that he participated in the killings.

A group of students were driving last Wednesday after school to a friend’s house to go swimming when Misskelley began telling his bizarre tale, she said.

“He was saying he hit the little boy and the little boy ran off and he was taking him back to where Damien and the other boy were,” she said. According to Misskelley’s story, Echols had already killed the two other boys, she said.

That one's odd as I've yet to find any evidence that the police looked into the report, but it the earliest mention of Misskelley's admitting to hitting one of the boys, as he didn't admit as much in his initial confession but did to Stidham a few days after that article and in later confessions. There's also a letter apparently from someone who was in prison with Misskelley after the trial which claims another confession, but best I can tell that was never looked into either. And finally there's Buddy Lucas who on 10/14/93 explained detail how Misskelley confessed to him, but changed his story shortly thereafter.
 
I'm truly curious if kyle or others that put stock in Jessie's confession believe there are circumstances that can lead to a false confession, short of water boarding or some other form of phsycial torture. Along the same lines, do you recognize and acknowledge the concerns with Jessie's confession? It sounds to me like there are no qualms at all with how it was obtained.
 
Anecdotal evidence doesn't rightly amount to much.

Neither do "confessions" that don't match the forensics and are "coached" by LE!

Have you never seen a kid do poorly on tests and wind special education when the issue is more one of being malcontent than moronic? I have, not that anecdotal evidence amounts to much.

I have seen students do poorly on a test and then be given a battery of tests to determine if they have a learning disability or some other reason to be placed in Special Education. I have seen, on occasion, a student misdiagnosed and placed in Special Education. The mistake is generally discovered by the next ARD meeting (a meeting held yearly with SE students to assess their progress and whether or not any additional or different modifications need to be made to their Individual Education Plan - IEP for short). However, Jessie Misskelly, Jr. was in Special Education classes from about the third grade until he dropped out of school in the ninth grade. Believe me, schools no longer place or leave students in Special Education classes unless the students are really learning disabled. There are simply not enough Special Education teachers to do so!


Just initially? I mean I know Stidham and Wilkins claimed they got him to confess to the robbery on tape, but the transcript of the tape Stidham shows Misskelley resisting their attempts and Stidham eventually changing the subject.

They said he that he did, eventually, "confess" to a crime he didn't commit. However, it's really immaterial if Jessie falsely confessed to his attorney and Wilkins. What is material is that he falsely confessed to LE. Do you not acknowledge the existence of false confessions?


The documents suggest Misskelley wasn't even considered a suspect until he went saying he said he was present at the murders, which is hardly consistent with "assuming absolute guilt from the very beginning of the interrogation process" as explained on the page you linked or the notion that he was harangue for hours.

However, the police did use the Reid technique on Jessie. The Reid technique, as was discussed in the link I previously provided, often produces false confessions when used with children and/or the mentally handicapped. Jessie was both.


Having taken the time to look up square knots and half hitches to insure I know what they are, and even going so far as strip a lace out of an old shoe and tie both around my ankle multiple times while alternating my starting hand: I'm nearly certain you're the one who's confused here.

I'm totally certain that I am not confused. A square knot is tied by taking the two ends and, first passing the left hand end over the right hand end, poking it through and pulling. Then the process is reversed. I remember it with the mnemonic, "Left over right and through and pull. Right over left and through and pull." That is two half-hitches using alternating ends to start as I said before.
 
I'm truly curious if kyle or others that put stock in Jessie's confession believe there are circumstances that can lead to a false confession, short of water boarding or some other form of phsycial torture. Along the same lines, do you recognize and acknowledge the concerns with Jessie's confession? It sounds to me like there are no qualms at all with how it was obtained.

I think it wasn't ideal, along with a lot of other procedures in this case, I could have discounted one confession, but not 4. I have many criticisms of the police, the trial and the media in this case, I don't believe the stupid satanic BS at all and have no idea how they even got that in .. I do however believe the WM3 are guilty, of Murder 2 though .. as I think it was an act of drunken bullying that got way out of control, with Jason and Damien each trying to out-do the other. I also think the time they spent in jail is enough.

At the end of the day, police are police, they are not beyond reproach, and a trial is not the place where truth is found .. a trial is about law .. in this case beyond who did what, in regards to the state or the defence is one thing, but the actual truth of the matter is another .. and that is what interests me.
 
I think it wasn't ideal, along with a lot of other procedures in this case, I could have discounted one confession, but not 4. I have many criticisms of the police, the trial and the media in this case, I don't believe the stupid satanic BS at all and have no idea how they even got that in .. I do however believe the WM3 are guilty, of Murder 2 though .. as I think it was an act of drunken bullying that got way out of control, with Jason and Damien each trying to out-do the other. I also think the time they spent in jail is enough.

At the end of the day, police are police, they are not beyond reproach, and a trial is not the place where truth is found .. a trial is about law .. in this case beyond who did what, in regards to the state or the defence is one thing, but the actual truth of the matter is another .. and that is what interests me.

Thanks. I can certainly see your points, regardless of whether I agree or disagree. Even in your scenario, do you think the initial assaults happened where suggested by the prosecution? I just have a hard time with drunks being able to so thoroughly clean up after themselves. Not one drop as far as I'm aware. No hairs. No footprints that I'm aware of.
 
Neither do "confessions" that don't match the forensics and are "coached" by LE!
They don't mean as much as confessions which matched the forensics in all regards and involved no coaching, but if one sets the bar at perfection then everything is bound to fall short.

However, it's really immaterial if Jessie falsely confessed to his attorney and Wilkins. What is material is that he falsely confessed to LE.
Unsubstantiated claims that Misskelley's confessions were outright false are immaterial, and ignoring such evidence based on supposition is a logical falicy commonly known as cherry picking.

Do you not acknowledge the existence of false confessions?
Sure, there's an example in this very case. Do you know who I'm referring to?

However, the police did use the Reid technique on Jessie.
How exactly have you reached this conclusion?

I'm totally certain that I am not confused.
Following your instructions leaves me to believe that you are, but if you can provide some diagrams or a video to prove otherwise then I'd be happy to admit I was wrong.
 
Thanks. I can certainly see your points, regardless of whether I agree or disagree. Even in your scenario, do you think the initial assaults happened where suggested by the prosecution? I just have a hard time with drunks being able to so thoroughly clean up after themselves. Not one drop as far as I'm aware. No hairs. No footprints that I'm aware of.

I really think it's just because it was outside, and that they got into the water and splashed water up to the bank .. as I have said I have a lot of issues with various unprofessional investigation 'techniques' used, we can see from footage in the Paradise Lost films that police were all over the scene and in their own clothes, a more professional example would be securing the scene and calling in the forensic units.
 
Here is another criticism I have for what it's worth .. Damien's DP conviction .. he was young, he had a psychiatric history, he was drunk at the time of the offence, all good mitigators that should have been taken into account, even with the Murder 1 conviction he should have been given life and been allowed to be in the general population. Also does anyone know if he continued psychiatric treatment in jail?
 
Here is another criticism I have for what it's worth .. Damien's DP conviction .. he was young, he had a psychiatric history, he was drunk at the time of the offence, all good mitigators that should have been taken into account, even with the Murder 1 conviction he should have been given life and been allowed to be in the general population. Also does anyone know if he continued psychiatric treatment in jail?

George woods affidavit from Callahan states he received no psychiatric treatment in jail.
 
They don't mean as much as confessions which matched the forensics in all regards and involved no coaching, but if one sets the bar at perfection then everything is bound to fall short.

Jessie's stories don't meet the minimum standard for accuracy, especially the first statement on 6/3/93. There should be at least a reasonable doubt as to their veracity. So, the verdicts were based on a statement that should have been thrown out as it is not accurate enough to meet the burden of " beyond reasonable doubt" that it should have met. Therefore, the convictions are based on faulty evidence and should have been overturned.

Unsubstantiated claims that Misskelley's confessions were outright false are immaterial, and ignoring such evidence based on supposition is a logical falicy commonly known as cherry picking.

But I guess it's not "cherry picking" when you accept the statements of two pre-teens and one drug addict and discount the statements of friends and family who gave alibis at the trials but were disbelieved because they were "friends and family" so have to be lying.


Sure, there's an example in this very case. Do you know who I'm referring to?

Of course. Jessie Misskelley, Jr.'s multiple statements.

How exactly have you reached this conclusion?

The simple logic of it seems to escape some people, but that's how I reached the conclusion - simple logic.

Following your instructions leaves me to believe that you are, but if you can provide some diagrams or a video to prove otherwise then I'd be happy to admit I was wrong.

Here you go! The Wiki article (which I can't hot link for some reason) even uses a version of my mnemonic!

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reef_knot"]Reef knot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I really think it's just because it was outside, and that they got into the water and splashed water up to the bank .. as I have said I have a lot of issues with various unprofessional investigation 'techniques' used, we can see from footage in the Paradise Lost films that police were all over the scene and in their own clothes, a more professional example would be securing the scene and calling in the forensic units.

We can agree about the investigation. I don't think there's much question about how they handled the crime scene, whether you believe the WM3 guilty or innocent. I'm still just not sure if I'm sold on the splashing water on the bank. That might get rid of a good majority of the blood evidence, but every single drop?
 
They don't mean as much as confessions which matched the forensics in all regards and involved no coaching, but if one sets the bar at perfection then everything is bound to fall short.

Would probably be a good idea if they matched in some of the major respects.


Unsubstantiated claims that Misskelley's confessions were outright false are immaterial, and ignoring such evidence based on supposition is a logical falicy commonly known as cherry picking.

Unsubstantiated? So the kids were tied with rope? So the murders did take place while the kids were in school? And that is immaterial? Man, if I'm ever charged with a crime, I'm striking every juror named kyle. And no, ignoring all of the problems with a "confession" and only relying on selected statements that help build one's case is cherry picking.

Following your instructions leaves me to believe that you are, but if you can provide some diagrams or a video to prove otherwise then I'd be happy to admit I was wrong.

You crack me up. :toast:
 
Jessie's stories don't meet the minimum standard for accuracy, especially the first statement on 6/3/93. There should be at least a reasonable doubt as to their veracity.
I doubt the veracity of your "the minimum standard for accuracy" claim, as I'm not aware of any established standard for such.

But I guess it's not "cherry picking" when you accept the statements of two pre-teens and one drug addict and discount the statements of friends and family who gave alibis at the trials but were disbelieved because they were "friends and family" so have to be lying.
The issues with the alibi witness isn't that they are friends and family, and I know more than two pre-teens who reported hearing Echols confess to the murders, and one teenager as well. I've also yet to hear a reasonable explanation for how Carson managed to get the details of the murders as consistent with the other evidence as he did.

Of course. Jessie Misskelley, Jr.'s multiple statements.
No, I'm referring to someone else who confessed to the murders, and actually did endure over 12 hours of interrogation before doing so. Do you not know who that is?

The simple logic of it seems to escape some people, but that's how I reached the conclusion - simple logic.
Logic requires evidence. and the fact that you've provided no evidence to support your claim that the Reid technique was used on Misskelley has apparently escaped you.

Here you go! The Wiki article (which I can't hot link for some reason) even uses a version of my mnemonic!

Reef knot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's no mention of half hitches on either of those pages, let alone any statement in support of your claim that square knots are essentially the same as half hitches. I've been googling around looking for someone other than you making such a claim, but I've yet to find one. Can you?

Would probably be a good idea if they matched in some of the major respects.
It would be good if everyone could come to terms with the fact that they do, as Fogleman explained in detail throughout his closing arguments in the Misskelley trial.

ignoring all of the problems with a "confession" and only relying on selected statements that help build one's case is cherry picking.
I'm not ignoring the fact that Misskelley said the murders were committed before they possibility could've been in his initial confession. Rather, I take that in the context of him also having said "all this stuff happened that night" early into that initial confession, and later confirmed that the murders happened around nightfall throughout his many subsequent confessions.

As for the Misskelley's mention of rope, have you not seen the explanation he gave in a later confession regarding that? Besides, do you not recall one of Misskelley's own defense witnesses providing another explanation for how such errors in legitimate confessions can happen? There's at least one more possible explanation I'm aware of, but I'd like to hear your take on the aforementioned two first.

You crack me up.
Well, I find such a jovial response to my interest in factual discussion of the murder of three young boys disturbing.
 
I doubt the veracity of your "the minimum standard for accuracy" claim, as I'm not aware of any established standard for such.

To be convicted of murder, the minimum standard of accuracy that must be met is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in regards to the evidence. Jessie's statements simply don't meet that standard. There are glaring errors in every one of his statements, including the post-conviction statements, that would cause a reasonable, unbiased person considerable "reasonable doubt" as to their veracity. So, his statements don't really meet the burden of proof for the prosecution. They were only accepted because, IMO, there was a crooked judge and an uninformed jury (ready to convict whoever LE had arrested because of the uninformed view, "if the police arrested them they must be guilty" prevalent in low-income areas such as Arkansas).

The issues with the alibi witness isn't that they are friends and family, and I know more than two pre-teens who reported hearing Echols confess to the murders, and one teenager as well. I've also yet to hear a reasonable explanation for how Carson managed to get the details of the murders as consistent with the other evidence as he did.

Damien's so-called "confessions" were attempts at sarcasm on his part. It was always one of his defense mechanisms. I can't help it if those who "overheard" his statements couldn't recognize sarcasm and thought the statements were sincere and factual. As to Carson, one of his counselors (the name escapes me right now; it might have been "Williams") contacted the defense and told them that he had given Carson the information about the murders. Of course, the crooked judge wouldn't allow him to testify.

No, I'm referring to someone else who confessed to the murders, and actually did endure over 12 hours of interrogation before doing so. Do you not know who that is?

Terry Hobbs? (That's my attempt at sarcasm.)

Logic requires evidence. and the fact that you've provided no evidence to support your claim that the Reid technique was used on Misskelley has apparently escaped you.

The fact that the prosecution didn't provide sufficient evidence to convict the three teens in any other court in the land has apparently escaped you. I know that I've seen or read a statement (by Gitchell, I believe) discussing their use of the Reid technique, but I had a computer crash a few months' back and lost all of my links. However, as the article previously linked pointed out, the Reid technique is common police practice. Asking me to "provide evidence" that the wmpd used it on Jessie is just as convoluted as me asking you to provide evidence that they didn't use it.

There's no mention of half hitches on either of those pages, let alone any statement in support of your claim that square knots are essentially the same as half hitches. I've been googling around looking for someone other than you making such a claim, but I've yet to find one. Can you?

Half-hitches are referred to in the link I provided as half-knots. I didn't say a square knot is the same as a half-hitch. I said that a square knot is formed by two half-hitches, starting with alternating "ends" of the rope. OTOH, a "granny knot" is formed by two half-hitches, starting with the same "end" of the rope.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
1,949
Total visitors
2,141

Forum statistics

Threads
599,955
Messages
18,102,026
Members
230,959
Latest member
FormerSoldier
Back
Top