For Those Who Believe that Jessie Maintained His Guilt for Months

[kyleb]

Here's the meat of Foglaman's discussion of the claims of an alibi in his closing arguments:

Now, when you analyze their testimony -- and this isn't a real impressive, professional little diagram I've got here -- but, when you analyze their testimony in regard to Highland Park -- and ofcourse you can't see this but I'm still gonna refer to it cause it helps my memory. The testimony about where the defendant was up until about 5:30 is really pretty consistent. It's pretty consistent among the witnesses. But when you get to the crucial time around 5:30 or 6:00, these witnesses have this defendant in three or four different places at the same time. You look at it, at about -- Susie Brewer, she's got at 6:00 -- around 6:00 -- between 5:30 and about 7:00 -- she's got her and the defendant on the street together and at Stephanie Dollar's house. If you move down to Jennifer Roberts, she's got at 6:00 the defendant and Christy Jones on the defendant's porch. Christy Jones says that from beginning about 5:30 or 6:00 she and the defendant are on her porch by themselves for about an hour or hour and a half. So anywhere from 5:30 to 7:00 or 6:00 to 7:30, she's saying that they're sitting on the porch all by themselves. If you go down to Mr. Hoggard, he puts at 6:30 Jessie by himself out in front of Stephanie Dollar's house. Not on the porch at the defendant's, and not with Susie Brewer down the street. Mr. McNease says that about that time that he sees the defendant at this police car which is down the street from the defendant's house. And finally, Jessie Senior says that he sees the police there when he gets home from DWI school. Well, the DWI school doesn't end to almost 8:00, and if you'll look at this radio log, you'll see that the officers checked off the scene there right before 7:00, or at 8:00. Anyway, it was at a time when they had already left by the time Mr. Misskelley, Senior got home, or even left where he was. So this is all totally inconsistent.

And then when you go to the wrestling alibi, that was a total, total mess. You have Fred Revelle, the only one, the only person, who comes to the police and says, "Look, I think you all may have made a mistake. He was with me, and here's why he was with me. We had gone wrestling, it was me and Jessie and one other person," I believe he said. And -- in his first statement to the police. "And I know it was that day because that's the day we paid the money." So the police naturally doing their job, they go out and investigate to see if he's right, you know, was the defendant somewhere else? And lo and behold what do they find out? The money was paid a week before that. And they get a receipt to prove that. Well then when Mr. Revelle comes into court and testifies, the story is completely different. And he hadn't told anybody about it, with law enforcement.

Then you have Dennis Carter come in here and say, "Yeah I went with him May the 5th, I know it was May the 5th, sure as I'm sitting here." I said that, he didn't. But that's the gist of his words. And then what did he tell the police? Shortly after -- keep in mind, this when it's still fresh in the memory -- shortly after the arrest of the defendant, what did he tell them? Said "I didn't go wrestling then. I didn't go wrestling 'till after the murders had happened. Days after." Just a mess.

And then finally, after witness after witness gives these confusing and conflicting stories about being wrestling or not wrestling, you have this Johnny Hamilton come in. And he testifies that, "Why I'm sure it was that day. Kevin Johnson was at search and rescue, Keith Johnson went., that was the only time he went." Keith johnson says, "Yeah I went wrestling one time and some specific events happened, but I don't know when it was." Keith Johnson, I think, told the truth. He didn't have any idea when it was, but yeah he'd been wrestling with them one time. How do we know that's not true? Not about Keith Johnson, but about that it was May the 5th. When they went wrestling they signed this document. Keith Mercier -- I hope I say that right -- he came in today and testified, "I only went one time. I went one time, signed the form, and it was before the murders." He's the last person that signed. He had to have signed after Keith Johnson, after Johnny Hamilton. Keith Johnson only went one time. So Keith Johnson had to have gone before the murders, for Keith Mercier to have signed after him.

Also on Mr. Hamilton, he says, "Well I’m not gonna drive 600 miles for nothing." He would drive 600 miles to testify, but he won't go 3 or 4 miles from Highland Park to the police department to tell them, "Hey I think you've made a mistake." He didn't tell anybody. He didn't even tell the defense. He didn't tell anybody -- somebody goes and talks to him last Sunday and he says, "Oh yeah I remember vividly May the 5th." Where were we May the 5th? I ain't got the clue.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here's the meat of Foglaman's discussion of the claims of an alibi in his closing arguments:

Fogleman did what prosecutors are trained to do - discredit the defense's witnesses however possible. Sometimes prosecutors actually lie in order to discredit a witness. Sometimes they try on cross examination to confuse the witnesses. That's what happened here. Then, Fogleman used that confusion in his closing argument to try to convince the jury that the witness was lying.

It is the jury's job and charge to try to ferret out which side is telling the truth. The two juries in these cases got it wrong. Why they got it wrong is up to you to decide, but I think it was the horrific nature of the crime, the fact that the prosecution led them to believe the crime was sexual in nature because of Christopher's injuries (which I am convinced were postmortem animal predation) and the fact that the teens, especially Damien, were not "normal" in the eyes of the juries, making it easy for them to wrongfully convict the teens of these murders.

 

[terekaugelt]

I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.
Reply With Quote

I may be mistaken, but in my opinion kyleb just has not answered, I mean really answered (instead of quoting Fogleman's concluding remarks, which are but remotely relevant) this one. So I am eager to get an answer.

 

[kyleb]

My quoting of Fogleman was never intend to answer the questions you copied from Reedus, but rather was a response to CR's argument suggesting Misskelley had been at the trailer park and off wresting around the at around sunset on day of the murders. As for Reedus' questions, I don't presume to know the answer to the first, and I consider the latter to presumptuous to bother humoring, hence the reason I didn't bother to respond to either.

 

[terekaugelt]

I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.

The question that I have made bold to bold is a very concrete question. I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. How is it possible to say that you do not know the answer to that one - how the quoted answer advances your position? You yourself included it to advance your position so how come you do not know how it advances it?
The other question is not "too presumptuous to bother humoring", it is a perfectly legitimate question, extremely calmly and civilly formulated.
In fact, I truly admire reedus's patience and civility (included his/her 24-four-hour rule in my own life!), and also his/her neutrality - she/he often thanks people with different views - something that I still have to learn to do.
So (s)he put two legitimate questions to you, very politely. You have not answered them.
If you do not answer them, that speaks volumes. It's as simple as that.

 

[kyleb]

What you bolded is not a question but rather an assertion, and I'm in no position to question it.

 

[reedus23]

I'm really not following. What am I missing? I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. Ridge told Jessie that they saw Damien and Jason having sex with the boys so Jessie made it up and said "Yeah, they had sex with the boys." Not to mention the fact that now Ridge actually saw Damien and Jessie having sex with the boys. I suppose we need to bring the FBI or someone else in to investigate the WMPD because apparently their officers were present at the time of the murders??? I truly may be misreading something, so please tell me where I'm off.

The question that I have made bold to bold is a very concrete question. I'm not seeing how the quoted portion advances your position. How is it possible to say that you do not know the answer to that one - how the quoted answer advances your position? You yourself included it to advance your position so how come you do not know how it advances it?
The other question is not "too presumptuous to bother humoring", it is a perfectly legitimate question, extremely calmly and civilly formulated.
In fact, I truly admire reedus's patience and civility (included his/her 24-four-hour rule in my own life!), and also his/her neutrality - she/he often thanks people with different views - something that I still have to learn to do.
So (s)he put two legitimate questions to you, very politely. You have not answered them.
If you do not answer them, that speaks volumes. It's as simple as that.

It's a "he" and thanks for the words. I do thank people even with an opposing view than myself if I feel their point is logical or well thought out, even if I personally come to a differing opinion. I don't always remember to do it, but I try.

As to mine and your question, I would not anticipate getting a straight forward answer.

 

[reedus23]

What you bolded is not a question but rather an assertion, and I'm in no position to question it.

And I turn the page and read the response.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My quoting of Fogleman was never intend to answer the questions you copied from Reedus, but rather was a response to CR's argument suggesting Misskelley had been at the trailer park and off wresting around the at around sunset on day of the murders. As for Reedus' questions, I don't presume to know the answer to the first, and I consider the latter to presumptuous to bother humoring, hence the reason I didn't bother to respond to either.

The problem with quoting Fogleman's closing remarks in order to prove that Jessie wasn't at Dyess practicing wrestling is that Fogleman wasn't at Dyess. So, he doesn't know for a fact if Jessie was or not. As a prosecutor, in those closing remarks, he is simply reiterating the twisted version of events that he "coached" the witnesses, who were there, into saying. Again, this is what Fogleman is supposed to do. It simply doesn't make it true! Finally, I don't see how quoting Jessie as saying that he made up the story about Jason and Damien having sex with Christopher, Michael and Steven after Ridge told him that Damien and Jason were having sex proves Jessie's veracity. IMO, it simply shows how confused he was!

 

[kyleb]

Well you've apparently misconstrued my reasons for quoting Misskelley's conversation with Ofshe and Fogleman's closing arguments. I don't imagine any amount of explanation could change that though, so I'm not going to bother trying.

 

[reedus23]

The problem with quoting Fogleman's closing remarks in order to prove that Jessie wasn't at Dyess practicing wrestling is that Fogleman wasn't at Dyess. So, he doesn't know for a fact if Jessie was or not. As a prosecutor, in those closing remarks, he is simply reiterating the twisted version of events that he "coached" the witnesses, who were there, into saying. Again, this is what Fogleman is supposed to do. It simply doesn't make it true! Finally, I don't see how quoting Jessie as saying that he made up the story about Jason and Damien having sex with Christopher, Michael and Steven after Ridge told him that Damien and Jason were having sex proves Jessie's veracity. IMO, it simply shows how confused he was!

The goal of a prosecutor isn't to always get a witness to recant a story. Just get the witness to say 1 or 2 things that you can attack and hold out as gospel in closing, ignoring the remainder of their testimony. It is kind of like if someone tells you that a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence demonstrates that the WM3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the meantime ignore a vast majority of the evidence that doesn't support the theory. Similarly, the prosecutor's job in that instance, is to get you to believe you are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony.

 

[reedus23]

Might be somewhat off topic, but deals with the initial recorded statement. Was just listening to it again and not sure why I didn't notice it before, but it seems obvious that they knew they were dealing with someone with diminished mental faculties when they had to ask Jessie twice if he knew what a penis was. My kids have known what a penis is for years now and they're both younger than Jessie was at the time. Why the need to ask someone his age if he knows what a penis is unless you already question his mental faculties.

 

[kyleb]

It is kind of like if someone tells you that a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence demonstrates that the WM3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the meantime ignore a vast majority of the evidence that doesn't support the theory.

Theories are only disproved by evidence which contradicts them, and exist among many facts which don't support them. For instance, OJ Simpson struggling to get the glove on does nothing to refute the theory that he murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, nor does the fact that the Earth is essentially spherical or the vast majority of other facts. South Park did a fine job of exemplifying this with their Chewbacca defense.

Similarly, the prosecutor's job in that instance, is to get you to believe you are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony.

Such deception plays no part in the job of of a prosecutor, and to the contrary prosecutors are ethically bound to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause". That is inherently a prohibition against prospecting individuals who have credible alibis that put them somewhere other than the scene of the crime. So for Fogleman to have done what you've imagined was his job would in realty be a gross violation of ethics, but of course you've come nowhere close to actually demonstrating what you claimed, and I've yet to find anyone who has.

Oh, and yeah, of course your more recent post is off topic here, but if you bother to make a new thread about it I'd be happy to join the discussion.

 

[reedus23]

Such deception plays no part in the job of of a prosecutor, and to the contrary prosecutors are ethically bound to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause". That is inherently a prohibition against prospecting individuals who have credible alibis that put them somewhere other than the scene of the crime. So for Fogleman to have done what you've imagined was his job would in realty be a gross violation of ethics, but of course you've come nowhere close to actually demonstrating what you claimed, and I've yet to find anyone who has.

Oh, and yeah, of course your more recent post is off topic here, but if you bother to make a new thread about it I'd be happy to join the discussion.

Talking apples and oranges kyle. First, I don't consider it deception. It's closing arguments and they are, in fact, arguing the facts. They did, in fact, get the witness to make those 1 or 2 statements. They simply choose to draw attention away from the rest of the testimony. It is similar to someone starting a thread to discuss occult motives that have little to do with the case by nearly everyone's admission in order to draw attention away from and avoid talking about the larger concerns with the case. There is nothing wrong with it(in fact, in ways I admire it), but it is something that all lawyers do, on both sides. That's simply their job.

Regarding your rule citation, closing arguments have nothing to do with bringing charges that are not supported by probably cause. Fogleman's concerns regarding probable cause were essentially eliminated when the Judge signed off on the arrest warrants. That's also why the Judge would NOT sign off on them originally and made them go back to change Jessie's story. Having said that, I do think he walked a fine line, but prosecutors have to do that routinely.

 

[kyleb]

First, I don't consider it deception.

You don't don't consider getting others to believe they "are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony" to be deceptive? You don't consider it deception to trick people into believing they are doing something other than what they actually are? That's rich.

It is similar to someone starting a thread to discuss occult motives that have little to do with the case by nearly everyone's admission in order to draw attention away from and avoid talking about the larger concerns with the case.

Of course anyone who looks at my [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212300"]Echols' occult motives[/ame] thread should be able to see I only created it in response to others bringing up Griffis, a subject which really has nothing to do with the murder of these three young boys. So, I made a thread to bring the discussion back towards a subject which is related to the murders, the subject of motive.

 

[reedus23]

You don't don't consider getting others to believe they "are considering ALL of the testimony when in reality only 2 answers are being given credence to the exclusion of the majority of the testimony" to be deceptive? You don't consider it deception to trick people into believing they are doing something other than what they actually are? That's rich.


Of course anyone who looks at my Echols' occult motives thread should be able to see I only created it in response to others bringing up Griffis, a subject which really has nothing to do with the murder of these three young boys. So, I made a thread to bring the discussion back towards a subject which is related to the murders, the subject of motive.

You better move then, because that is one of the foundations of our justice system. That is why there are lawyers on both sides. That is why they call it closing ARGUMENTS. The prosecutor isn't there to make the case for their innocence. The defense attorneys, if they're doing their job, are there to point out that evidence that points toward doubt or innocence that the prosecutor didn't mention. I dare you to find me one closing argument in which a prosecutor makes an argument for innocence.

 

[kyleb]

You better move then, because that is one of the foundations of our justice system.

Deception has always played a part in legal systems, but it's never been the foundation of one, ours or any other. Again, the ethics guidelines I quoted previously demonstrate actual foundations of our legal system, and prosecuting people who have legitimate alibis putting them at somewhere other than the scene of the crime is a gross violation of those foundations. Furthermore, you say I'd " better move then"? You're deceiving yourself if you imagine that you're going to accomplish anything by telling me what to do.

 

[reedus23]

Deception has always played a part in legal systems, but it's never been the foundation of one, ours or any other. Again, the ethics guidelines I quoted previously demonstrate actual foundations of our legal system, and prosecuting people who have legitimate alibis putting them at somewhere other than the scene of the crime is a gross violation of those foundations. Furthermore, you say I'd " better move then"? You're deceiving yourself if you imagine that you're going to accomplish anything by telling me what to do.

Again, bringing charges has nothing to do with closing arguments. I agree with what the rule says and stands for but that has nothing to do with what a prosecutor argues in closing arguments. At that point, it is an adversarial system for a reason and it is that adversarial system which is part of the foundation of our legal system, not deception as you would have others believe I am saying.

As for bringing charges in the first place...yes, I agree, if the prosecutor knows that a person is innocent, it is unethical for him/her to bring charges. Getting back to the case at hand...do you know what steps the prosecution took and when to determine if the WM3's alibi witnesses were believable?

p.s. Ok, you can stay.

 

[kyleb]

Again, bringing charges has nothing to do with closing arguments.

That's absurd. Prosecutors are ethically bound do drop the case if evidence of actual innocence emerges, and even to go back and rectify the injustice if such evidence surfaces after a conviction. To insist Fogleman made his closing arguments after a legitimate alibi was presented in court implies he either violated his ethical duties or was incompetent. Of course you've never come close to demonstrating either, and neither as anyone else I've yet to come across.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Getting back to the case at hand...do you know what steps the prosecution took and when to determine if the WM3's alibi witnesses were believable?

I think that this question might have been overlooked, and it is a very good one.