For Those Who Believe that Jessie Maintained His Guilt for Months

[kyleb]

Back to the matter of Misskelley's conscience, I've never seen him engage in any of the finger pointing at parents of the victims, unlike Baldwin, Echols, and so many of their supporters have. So, has anyone here ever seen Misskelley cast suspicion on Mark Byers and/or Terry Hobbs, or has he kept silent throughout all of that?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Someone with Jessie's diminished mental capabilities simply didn't understand what Stidham was saying about "If they find, etc." Yes, he said he understood, but he didn't! Again, I know this from 25 years' experience teaching students just like Jessie (Damien and Jason, too, BTW). The "slow" students constantly strive to push the spotlight off of themselves because they don't want others to recognize their shortcomings.

Unfortunately, sometimes that keeps them from getting the help they need, but it's too often what happens. It takes someone with an extreme amount of patience and a lot of time to discover the problem and address it. So, it doesn't matter what Jessie said to his attorney. The sad fact is that Jessie can't tell a cohesive story, doesn't understand the "big words" used by many around him and should never have been tried as he was because of his diminished capacities. The fact that the wmpd denied knowing of his mental condition is, IMO, one of the most heinous aspects of this sorry case.

ETA: As to Jessie's lack of "finger pointing," again that is an outgrowth of his wish to remain in the background. He wouldn't want to be interviewed, again because it would point out his mental deficiency. Some people might not like that answer, but, based on my experience, it's the truth.

 

[gheckso]

Back to the matter of Misskelley's conscience, I've never seen him engage in any of the finger pointing at parents of the victims, unlike Baldwin, Echols, and so many of their supporters have. So, has anyone here ever seen Misskelley cast suspicion on Mark Byers and/or Terry Hobbs, or has he kept silent throughout all of that?

I agree that many supporters have directly finger pointed at certain parents, however I have not heard Echols or Baldwin directly finger point anyone in particular. I remember one interview where Echols completely avoids finger pointing and relates that a re-investigation of all evidence will be speak for itself, I've heard them mention Hobb's name in relation to recent discoveries but not flat out finger pointing.

I'm not saying they haven't done so as I'm not as familiar with this case as some, I just haven't seen them do so in a direct manner.

 

[reedus23]

I agree that many supporters have directly finger pointed at certain parents, however I have not heard Echols or Baldwin directly finger point anyone in particular. I remember one interview where Echols completely avoids finger pointing and relates that a re-investigation of all evidence will be speak for itself, I've heard them mention Hobb's name in relation to recent discoveries but not flat out finger pointing.

I'm not saying they haven't done so as I'm not as familiar with this case as some, I just haven't seen them do so in a direct manner.

And that's the thing to me. It's not about wanting to lay it all on John or Jane Doe. It's about the fact that there is good enough reason to look further into the case. If it turns out the WM3 did it. So be it. If it turns out John Doe did it, then prosecute him. If it turns out someone nobody ever thought of did it, prosecute them. The three murdered boys deserve that much.

 

[kyleb]

Neither of you have watched PL2, particularly the part where Kathy Bakken swoons over Echols while asking him about Mark Byers?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mh3g1joFKk#t=4570s"]Paradise Lost-Revelations - YouTube[/ame]

Bakken: What do you think of Byers?

Echols: I think Byers is the fakest creature who ever walked on two legs. I don't think there is a true thing about him. He puts on all these false faces, he'll act one way whenever they have cameras on him and another way when he's by himself, and he has about thirty different faces.

Bakken: So seeing him in the movie didn't change how, any. your opinions about him?

Well I think it reinforced the opinions I have about him. I still believe with all my heart that he is the person who killed those three children, and I have no sympathy for Byers. I'm sitting here on death row for a crime he committed. That alone is enough for me to have no sympathy for him, but also the fact that he killed three little kids.

Bakken: Do you think Mellisa had anything to do with it?

Echols: I don't think she actually participated in the act of killing them, but I think she participated in covering it up. I firmly believe she knew, and that's why she's dead now.

Bakken: If you could say, if you could give Byers a message what would it be?

Echols: I wouldn't say anything to Mark Byers. Mark Byers in beneath me. He doesn't even deserve my contempt.

That certainly wasn't about wanting to lay it all on John or Jane Doe, it was about wanting to lay it all parents of the victims. It was about the creating the illusion of Echols and his accomplices being innocent and Mark Byers being guilty not just of murdering his son and two other young boys, but also suggesting he murdered his own wife. It's a sick and twisted game played by a sociopath whose preys on the innocence of others in any way he can. Marylin Manson's Kiddie Grinder goes a long way to explaining the psychology of it all.

 

[gheckso]

I stand corrected, I'd just like to say that I'm convinced people would act very differently if they were to spend their remaining days (however many) incarcerated and waiting for death. I don't think being respectful was at the top of his concern list, in no way am I condoning his behavior but I don't think its shocking to hear something like this from someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned (jmo).

I have seen PL2 but do not remember every scene. Appreciate the info.

Have you got examples, or remember Jason making similar statements?

 

[kyleb]

So do you imagine Echols simply wasn't intelligent enough to realize there never was any actual evidence to connect Byers to the murders? Or do you agree with me that he was depraved enough insist Byers committed the murders despite the lack of any actual evidence to support such notions, but just refuse to believe he was depraved enough to have committed the murders himself?

As for examples of Baldwin making similar statements, sure, here's another scene from PL2:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mh3g1joFKk#t=1745s"]Paradise Lost-Revelations - YouTube[/ame]

There's at least one more example of such from each of them in PL2. Does anyone else here recall those examples and more recent ones but me?

 

[gheckso]

So do you imagine Echols simply wasn't intelligent enough to realize there never was any actual evidence to connect Byers to the murders?

Rather I believe they were young enough and scared enough to believe anyone could have done it, as noted by Jason and seen on the PL films, JMB was an odd character and they naively played on that is my guess.

Or do you agree with me that he was depraved enough insist Byers committed the murders despite the lack of any actual evidence to support such notions

Is this your opinion of everyone here who insists there is evidence that points elsewhere that you do not accept?

 

[kyleb]

Do you not comprehend the difference between believing anyone could have done it and insisting parents of the victims did it? And do you not see anything stupid about people wrongly convicted for being unusual insisting a parent of the victims committed the murders on the basis of how unusual that parent is? As for your question, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe explained my perspective on that as well as I could ever hope to:

misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.

Of course there's bound to be some supporters who secretly don't doubt the three committed the murders yet support them anyway of not for that very reason, much like the fans of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson obviously know those two committed the crimes which they did. I don't assume such hybristophilia on anyone in this case though, here or otherwise, as misunderstandings and neglect do well enough to explain the actions of everyone but Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley. Though again, I've yet to see Misskelley take part in any of the accusations against parents of the victims, and figure that's because he's got far more of a conscious than Baldwin and Echols combined, which also explains his reported crying fits and many documented confessions.

 

[reedus23]

Neither of you have watched PL2, particularly the part where Kathy Bakken swoons over Echols while asking him about Mark Byers?

Paradise Lost-Revelations - YouTube

That certainly wasn't about wanting to lay it all on John or Jane Doe, it was about wanting to lay it all parents of the victims. It was about the creating the illusion of Echols and his accomplices being innocent and Mark Byers being guilty not just of murdering his son and two other young boys, but also suggesting he murdered his own wife. It's a sick and twisted game played by a sociopath whose preys on the innocence of others in any way he can. Marylin Manson's Kiddie Grinder goes a long way to explaining the psychology of it all.

I'm not talking about others' feelings, beliefs or motivations. I was talking about mine. Regarding the bolded, to me it's not as much about showing innocence as it is about the fact there wasn't sufficient evidence of guilt in my opinion. If that is my belief, then it only follows that I think the only right thing to do is further investigate the murders in the interest of justice for the 3 boys.

 

[reedus23]

there never was any actual evidence to connect Byers to the murders?

Oh I think there was sufficient reason to look into Byers. I would suggest that there was reason to look at Damien. But from there, there has to be evidence that actually connects them to the crime and that's where it falls apart as to both of them.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I believe I've said this before, but, since this thread has strayed far afield, I'll say it again. JMB was thoroughly investigated and cleared wrt these murders. Todd Moore was cleared by his being out of town on May 5, 1993 (verified by his trucker's log). Terry Hobbs was never questioned until years after the false convictions. He simply wasn't home when the police came to question him, and they simply didn't follow up. Even Gitchell stated in his Pasdar deposition that the parents/step parents/family should be the first people investigated and cleared in a case of child murders. So, since TH was not investigated, what's wrong with demanding such an investigation at this time? If Damien, Jason and Jessie are guilty, an investigation of TH will be fruitless, right? Why such an aversion to clearing his name?

 

[reedus23]

I believe I've said this before, but, since this thread has strayed far afield, I'll say it again. JMB was thoroughly investigated and cleared wrt these murders. Todd Moore was cleared by his being out of town on May 5, 1993 (verified by his trucker's log). Terry Hobbs was never questioned until years after the false convictions. He simply wasn't home when the police came to question him, and they simply didn't follow up. Even Gitchell stated in his Pasdar deposition that the parents/step parents/family should be the first people investigated and cleared in a case of child murders. So, since TH was not investigated, what's wrong with demanding such an investigation at this time? If Damien, Jason and Jessie are guilty, an investigation of TH will be fruitless, right? Why such an aversion to clearing his name?

I truly don't get it. I don't get the us vs. them mentality. What the heck does it hurt to look into it further? If everything points right back at the WM3, so be it. If it points to someone else, wouldn't you want that person(s) punished so that justice can be served for those 3 boys? Some people need to put their ego aside IMHO. It's not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about justice for 3 little boys. If, in the meantime, the evidence shows the WM3 deserve some justice as well, so be it. The adamant refusal to even look and bury the head in the sand would piss me off if I were a parent. Even if I believed the WM3 were guilty personally, I would want every avenue pursued. Failure to do so is failing those 3 kids.

 

[gheckso]

I don't get it either, many supporters are labelled as such with respect to DJ&J whilst I'd opine they are more so with regards to Chris, Michael, Steve and justice.

 

[kyleb]

I truly don't get it. I don't get the us vs. them mentality.

Perhaps you might consider asking Berlinger and Sinofsky, as there' the ones who started this madness by choosing to take Echols' side before they even got a chance to see the evidence presented at the trials.

What the heck does it hurt to look into it further?

It's a matter of who it's hurt, but I apparently such people are of no concern to you.

 

[reedus23]

Perhaps you might consider asking Berlinger and Sinofsky, as there' the ones who started this madness by choosing to take Echols' side before they even got a chance to see the evidence presented at the trials.


It's a matter of who it's hurt, but I apparently such people are of no concern to you.

Why would I care what HBO has to say? I get you don't like their slant on the case, but it's HBO. What's that got to do with wanting justice for Michael, Stevie and Chris?

I don't even get your last point. Are you talking about the parents of the step children? I do sympathize for them, obviously. But if there's a chance that the killer of their boys has never been charged and there is a chance that a further investigation might uncover who that person is, don't you think they'd want that?

If you're talking about the fact that the investigation might involve or go through some of the (step) parents, yes, that's tough. But it should have been done with ALL of them from the get go. It's not fun, but if doing so, even at this late date, again uncovers who was responsible, then it is a tough price to pay to get justice for the 3 murdered boys.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One of the most baffling things about this case to me is the reticence on the part of some of the parents to look at the evidence again or to look at new information. I know if it were my child who had been killed, I would want to make very sure that the guilty party was punished. I wouldn't leave any rock unturned until I assured myself that the police had arrested the right perpetrators. When questions arose wrt to the guilt of those target by the police, I would be in the forefront in the fight to be sure all leads were followed and all suspects were questioned.

Although I understand that it is much easier to believe that the police "got it right" in the first place, I, personally, could never accept the State's version of the events of May 5, 1993 unless I was convinced beyond any doubt of the guilt of those convicted. I know that JMB and Pam Hobbs feel that way as does Ricky Murray, Christopher's biological father. Those who are satisfied that the killers were found shouldn't shy away from an opportunity to prove their convictions. Those who are unsatisfied with the convictions should be given the opportunity to find the real killer or killers. That is all.

 

[reedus23]

One of the most baffling things about this case to me is the reticence on the part of some of the parents to look at the evidence again or to look at new information. I know if it were my child who had been killed, I would want to make very sure that the guilty party was punished. I wouldn't leave any rock unturned until I assured myself that the police had arrested the right perpetrators. When questions arose wrt to the guilt of those target by the police, I would be in the forefront in the fight to be sure all leads were followed and all suspects were questioned.

Although I understand that it is much easier to believe that the police "got it right" in the first place, I, personally, could never accept the State's version of the events of May 5, 1993 unless I was convinced beyond any doubt of the guilt of those convicted. I know that JMB and Pam Hobbs feel that way as does Ricky Murray, Christopher's biological father. Those who are satisfied that the killers were found shouldn't shy away from an opportunity to prove their convictions. Those who are unsatisfied with the convictions should be given the opportunity to find the real killer or killers. That is all.

That is what I have never gotten. If I were a parent, and there was any question mark, I would want that question answered, even if it were the same person(s). No way I would want to take a chance that my child's killer was never charged.

 

[kyleb]

I, personally, could never accept the State's version of the events of May 5, 1993 unless I was convinced beyond any doubt of the guilt of those convicted.

Does your any include even most unreasonable of doubts?

 

[LordYAM]

Myth 1: Jessie confessed multiple times so he must be guilty

Explanation: First off, it IS possible to confess multiple times and be innocent. Just ask Chris Ochoa. Secondly, the state most likely DID meet Jessie off the books and either offer him a deal or threaten him (they tried to move him in February without informing his attorneys after the bible statement) and Jessie himself claims that the police told him Dan Stidham couldn't help him.

More importantly Jessie's confessions make no sense even when he's just "clarifying"

http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessiePostConvictionStatement.htm

Myth 2: Jessie wasn't handicapped

Explantion: The kid was in a special eds class; in Arkansas (one of the poorer states) they try to avoid doing that so if Jessie was in there he had issues. The reason nons like to pretend this isn't the case is because it means Jessie could have been coerced, and makes the police (who nons usually worship) into outright *******s.

Myth 3: Jessie explained details that only the killer would know.

Explanation: First off, the whiskey bottle is a red herring. Only the head of the bottle was found and FOUR different brands had the same head.

Jivepuppi explains how numerous statements Jessie made were either already well known or were fed to him during interrogation
https://www.jivepuppi.com/case_for_innocence_misskelley.html

He also got key details wrong in EVERY single confession. Even after hearing his own trial he couldn't get basic details correct.

Myth 4: The three only accepted the plea because they must be guilty

Explanation: While nons might live in a dreamworld where the state is honorable, in practice they're anything but. Often they will fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting a *advertiser censored* up even if it means letting a murderer go free. In Clarence Brandley's case he was granted an appeal in 1987; the judge ruled that there was overwhelming proof that James robinson and Gary acremen were the ones who actually committed the crime Brandley was sentenced to die for. The judge (hardly a bleeding heart liberal) condemned the prosecutors and the judges who had previously handled the case as liars and racists. It took TWO years for Brandley's appeal to make it through the en banc panel and even then almost half the judges tried to downplay the state's actions and imply Brandley must be guilty. It took another year for the supreme court to finally agree to grant brandley a new trial, at which point the state finally backed off and freed Brandley. Nevertheless they refused to charge James Robinson and Gary Acreman despite compelling proof of their guilt because they insisted Brandley was guilty.

In all honesty even if the three HAD won a new trial in the hearing the state STILL would have dragged it out for as long as possible and in all likelihood refused to indict Hobbs or any other potential suspects. Given the circumstances the deal was all they could hope for.

Myth 5: No new evidence has surfaced. They must be guilty.

Explantion: See above. It's entirely possible that they DID submit proof and were told to go to hell. Or they want an absolute slam dunk to get over the state's obstinance.

Myth 6: Jessie's inconsistencies were because he was drunk.

Explanation: So they were able to at night while there were mosquitos clean up blood vomit upturned grass bootprints fingerprints and hair....while they were drunk and get rid of beer bottles AND make it home by foot without someone noticing bloodstained people?

In the end it's a heartbreaking case, but the ugly truth is that the police ****ed up. The boys, for all their flaws, were not murderers. Unfortunately this is uncomfortable for cop apologists so they try to pretend otherwise.