Evidence

[Sasquatch321]

How many times did Jesse retell his coerced confession?

 

[zencompass]

Hi Sasquatch321,
I wish I knew how to insert the link to Jessie's initial "confession" to the police where he is repeating what the officer says to him and who keeps correcting Jessie. Initially Jessie was saying it was 9 in the morning and the boys missed the bus. The police keep "correcting" him. The conversation is so led by the police. It's quite sad to read actually as it's evident that Jessie just wanted to go home to his Dad and believed that if he got the story "right" then he could go home. Someone posted an excellent video of a police interview that shows how this happens. I will look for the link.

Jessie somehow believed that if he kept telling the "story" then he could go home to his Dad. It's very sad and unfortunately led towards the path of "satanic panic" with Damien Echols as the star of this absurd show. This "satanic panic" was initiated by the juvenile probation officers who made it their job to drive around on full moon nights searching for anything they deemed "satanic". I know - absurd right? It just shows how corrupt and manipulative police can be to force information from innocent people. It's tragic how they used Jessie for their own means.

I will look for the links. I have to figure out how to insert links.


R.I.P. B.B. King - Your music always touched my soul.

 

[Aynia]

How many times did Jesse retell his coerced confession?

OT but anyway,
I think 3/4 times but I'm not sure.
Now I have a question too, did he ever explained from where the adult shoelace came from? I read all his testimonies not long ago but I can't remember.
The first confession is so full of mistakes it's crazy. And of course later the explanation he gave was that he made the errors deliberately so the police would think it wasn't him (wondering who told him to say that?! ).

 

[Userid]

I don't think that they'd call Dr. Cowart. If this case ever sees the inside of a courtroom again, my guess is that Dr. Cowart's work would be redone by a certified forensic odontologist (who would come to the same conclusion Dr. Cowart did) and be presented by that person, not Dr. Cowart. The fact that Dr. Cowart took the time to make the video presentation despite not being a forensic odontologist doesn't refute the information at all. As I said, it just needs to be presented by a credible expert. And, unless the guy that did the "debunk" video is at least a dentist, I'm going to accept Dr. Cowart's work over his any day and twice on Sundays!

Well, you're somewhat changing your argument here. Before, you said that the dentist himself would be considered an expert at the trial; now, you're saying that they'd bring in someone much more qualified to flesh out his initial findings. Like before, I disagree with the former. As far as this new argument you're supposing, that makes much more sense to me.

I take the debunking video a little more seriously because he actually uses a photo that the grand majority of people have never seen, and that was never presented in any of the documentaries. Also, it's a photo that shows the whole story; it isn't just isolating one tiny area of the victim. I can't stomach viewing all the autopsy photos, but I think for those who can, they do have a better grasp and perhaps even a better understanding of the material.

If the dentist's findings were reviewed by a qualified forensic odontologist, then yes, I would give them more credibility. It certainly wouldn't hurt and I would hope that they are one day.

In turn, I would love if the dentist made a video in direct response to the debunking video, where he explains the injuries that go beyond the brow line, etc.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

He gave one to his attorney with his hand on a bible, no police in there during that one. Jessie did say that he tried to trick the police by giving false information. I think there were 6 confessions recorded (maybe more that we don't have information on) and some were after his conviction, so he had nothing to lose at that point.

 

[zencompass]

Yeah, poor guy. From his initial "confession" which started as he said at 9 a.m. with the boys missing the school bus and everything else "corrected by the police, he kept at the story because he thought if he got it "right" he could go home to his Dad. I just wish I knew how to link something to this post and I could link the initial conversation. So sad but it just goes to show how police can and do manipulate people into saying stuff they know is not possibly true.

Does anyone have the link to the Fifth Estate video on the police coercing people into saying things they know were not true but due to the coercion and the leading statements from the police actually ended up saying? It is chilling to see it. It truly is. And of course these are individuals who do not have a mental disability and the police still manage to do this. It's shocking but it happens probably more often than we think it does. If anyone can find this link and post it I would really appreciate it as I'd like to view it again. Thanks guys!!

 

[reedus23]

The original trial judge certified as an "expert" a man who had no training whatsoever in his field of supposed "expertise" but had "some experience" with it. The dentist in question has 25 years' experience in his field, plus the training necessary to be a dentist in the first place. I'd bet money that he could be certified as an "expert" in a fair trial.

He would. Plain and simple. And like magic he would become a forensic odontologist. Now being board certified or something like that is a different story.

 

[reedus23]

To me, the bite mark evidence is convincing. Does it convince me of guilt? No, but the video convinced me that a comparison between the partial denture and the mark on SB's forehead is reasonable. However, it does add to the mountain of things point towards TH. If you look at each and every one of these things by themselves, they could easily be questioned. But when you add 'em all up, and it's a great big pile by now, they begin too look a lot less like coincidences and lot more damning. Like CR said earlier in this thread, it's the sum of all evidence that matter. Right now, all that we've got is pointing towards one person. IMO, that doesn't mean he's guilty but it does warrant further investigation.

However, like I said before, in an ideal world all DNA present would be tested, and the case would be re-investigated all together.

Exactly. On a point by point basis, anything can be explained away. Defense attorneys are good at doing this. But you can only explain all those points away for so long before the explanations just begin to sound like mumbo jumbo.

 

[reedus23]

I understand that CR, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you referring to Peretti? Or Griffis -- the satanic "expert" with the mail-order degree? If you're referring to Griffis, then like I said, two wrongs don't make a right. I agree, that guy should not have been allowed to testify.

In addition,if this dentist was allowed as an expert at trial (I don't know why we're so hell bent on court procedure now, but I digress), an actual forensic odontologist with years of experience would most likely be called on the other side to refute this dentist -- and who do you think a jury would more likely believe?

I agree. I don't know why we are either. I don't even think anyone is even suggesting that this dentist would ever even be used at a trial. I think the most anyone is saying is...does what he has to say justify someone else actually taking a closer look. To that I say what could it hurt. Conversely, what it could help is tremendous, whether by way of refuting it or confirming it.

 

[reedus23]

Hi Sasquatch321,
I wish I knew how to insert the link to Jessie's initial "confession" to the police where he is repeating what the officer says to him and who keeps correcting Jessie. Initially Jessie was saying it was 9 in the morning and the boys missed the bus. The police keep "correcting" him. The conversation is so led by the police. It's quite sad to read actually as it's evident that Jessie just wanted to go home to his Dad and believed that if he got the story "right" then he could go home. Someone posted an excellent video of a police interview that shows how this happens. I will look for the link.

Jessie somehow believed that if he kept telling the "story" then he could go home to his Dad. It's very sad and unfortunately led towards the path of "satanic panic" with Damien Echols as the star of this absurd show. This "satanic panic" was initiated by the juvenile probation officers who made it their job to drive around on full moon nights searching for anything they deemed "satanic". I know - absurd right? It just shows how corrupt and manipulative police can be to force information from innocent people. It's tragic how they used Jessie for their own means.

I will look for the links. I have to figure out how to insert links.


R.I.P. B.B. King - Your music always touched my soul.

I wish I knew how to post my notes that I took on his confession as I was reading it for the first time. This was well before I formed any opinion on the convictions as I was just reading the raw data on callahan's before anything else. It absolutely jumped out at me. If I can figure it out, I'll post it here.

 

[reedus23]

Well, you're somewhat changing your argument here. Before, you said that the dentist himself would be considered an expert at the trial; now, you're saying that they'd bring in someone much more qualified to flesh out his initial findings. Like before, I disagree with the former. As far as this new argument you're supposing, that makes much more sense to me.

Both comments are correct. That dentist, based on what I've heard, would be admitted as an expert in nearly any court in the land. Having said that, someone board certified in that area with a career path that led him to the courts would likely be used.

I take the debunking video a little more seriously because he actually uses a photo that the grand majority of people have never seen, and that was never presented in any of the documentaries. Also, it's a photo that shows the whole story; it isn't just isolating one tiny area of the victim. I can't stomach viewing all the autopsy photos, but I think for those who can, they do have a better grasp and perhaps even a better understanding of the material.

Is this person a forensic odontologist, a dentist or just an average joe? I have no idea. Have not been able to watch either yet.

 

[reedus23]

He gave one to his attorney with his hand on a bible, no police in there during that one. Jessie did say that he tried to trick the police by giving false information. I think there were 6 confessions recorded (maybe more that we don't have information on) and some were after his conviction, so he had nothing to lose at that point.

I'm going bet there are 100's. All of them a little different. The next not worth anymore than the previous.

 

[Userid]

Is this person a forensic odontologist, a dentist or just an average joe? I have no idea. Have not been able to watch either yet.

He's an average joe, but he really doesn't have to be anything more. All he's doing is pointing out the pattern similarities. If you watch the video, you'll see what I mean. Simply pointing out the fact that other patterns like this exist at all on the face was informative, at least for me (because you never, ever see that in any of the docs or anywhere) -- I honestly never knew that, and I've been studying this case on and off for 20 years. This is also the first time I've ever seen the photo of the victim's face where the area isn't tightly cropped, and you see markings that extend below the brow, that go even farther to the right.

 

[zencompass]

I wish I knew how to post my notes that I took on his confession as I was reading it for the first time. This was well before I formed any opinion on the convictions as I was just reading the raw data on callahan's before anything else. It absolutely jumped out at me. If I can figure it out, I'll post it here.

Hey Reedus23! Gosh if you could provide the link to your notes I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks in advance!!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Compassionate Reader wrote:

The partial denture was identified by TH in the wmpd interview, IIRC, as "like one I have." It would be extremely improbable for two people to have identical partials. As I said before, one thing that makes this particular partial unique is the acrylic repair pointed out by the dentist. As to not having the actual partial, neither did the experts who said it wasn't a bite mark. Additionally, when a forensic pathologist calls on another forensic pathologist for a "second opinion." the second forensic pathologist does not examine the actual bodies, but looks at pictures and paperwork. These opinions are often admitted in court. As the video pointed out, one of those original experts, after seeing the video, said that the partial "could not be ruled out" as the cause of the wound. If the State of Arkansas would reopen the case, the partial and other evidence could be reexamined and the truth could be determined.

This was also one of the reasons why I found his work compelling. Considering this was quite a simple piece of "Photoshop/Gimp" work, it convinced me "beyond reasonable doubt". With access to x-rays, the original partial, and the 3D computer technique that is available to dentists these days, I think it would be possible to lessen the, beyond reasonable doubt, even further. As I've also stated before, the fact that this injury in anyway resembles the TH partial, is alarming on it's own, and I don't believe in coincidences.


reedus23 wrote:

With all due respect, in a vast majority of cases that are tried, there is not that one piece of physical evidence that is a smoking gun and just leaves no reasonable doubt. Typically, it is an accumulation of evidence, which, when taken as a whole, lead one to believe that some is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Just beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, obviously, the amount of proof necessary to simply bring charges is much lower and I quite honestly believe there is more than enough to have charged TH years ago. There are probably a zillion reasons on why that hasn't been done, including the difficulty in obtaining a conviction.

Excellent. I've said it a few times, but not as well as this.

To single out the many, many things that implicate TH, and then attempt to make an exception out of each and every one, well that only gives me the impression of "clutching straws" and makes me wonder what kind of motivation is behind doing this. Meticulously disassembling the suspicions against TH so that someone else has more room to be suspicious? JMB perhaps? I somehow don't think that will work. Besides, have we got a suspect with half as much stacked against them ? A lot of shady characters, yes, but nothing solid. A "complete stranger" as the perp, does not fit into many aspects of the case, and I’m certain it wasn’t the WM3.

 

[zencompass]

Thank you for explaining the situation so well, Cher Lockhomes.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I just saw something interesting on another message board about this case. It's a door-to-door note with several adresses on N14th Street. In the margin, as you can see, the name of Jamie Clark (Ballard) is written, along with 'S. McAuley'.

Some questions I have about these notes:
-Which officer made these door-to-door interviews?
-Why was JC's name written in the margin?
-Did the officer actually talk to JC?
Some food for thought..

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Compassionate Reader wrote:



This was also one of the reasons why I found his work compelling. Considering this was quite a simple piece of "Photoshop/Gimp" work, it convinced me "beyond reasonable doubt". With access to x-rays, the original partial, and the 3D computer technique that is available to dentists these days, I think it would be possible to lessen the, beyond reasonable doubt, even further. As I've also stated before, the fact that this injury in anyway resembles the TH partial, is alarming on it's own, and I don't believe in coincidences.


reedus23 wrote:



Excellent. I've said it a few times, but not as well as this.

To single out the many, many things that implicate TH, and then attempt to make an exception out of each and every one, well that only gives me the impression of "clutching straws" and makes me wonder what kind of motivation is behind doing this. Meticulously disassembling the suspicions against TH so that someone else has more room to be suspicious? JMB perhaps? I somehow don't think that will work. Besides, have we got a suspect with half as much stacked against them ? A lot of shady characters, yes, but nothing solid. A "complete stranger" as the perp, does not fit into many aspects of the case, and I’m certain it wasn’t the WM3.

I watched the debunk Video and I do see the half circles all over the side of SBs face. Does anyone think the killer picked up a pipe and held it in one hand while jabbing him in the face with the end of it. (If he used the handle of a knife he risks slicing his hand) It could have been cut uneven to make half circles instead of full circles. There could still be a bite mark as well on the forehead as an additional injury.

 

[Userid]

I just saw something interesting on another message board about this case. It's a door-to-door note with several adresses on N14th Street. In the margin, as you can see, the name of Jamie Clark (Ballard) is written, along with 'S. McAuley'.
View attachment 74843
Some questions I have about these notes:
-Which officer made these door-to-door interviews?
-Why was JC's name written in the margin?
-Did the officer actually talk to JC?
Some food for thought..

I never believed the Ballard sighting, and this just confirms my suspicion. Supposedly, no one from the police department ever contacted the family to interview them -- but obviously, she and her family's address were on the WMPD's radar very early in the police reports, before the WM3 were even arrested.

From these notes, it seems like the police had talked to JCB at one of these addresses, most likely at 809 N. 14th. They took her name and address down. Wonder why she wouldn't have told the police about her supposed sighting then?

EDIT: I just re-read it, and it looks like it was JCB who had "saw the boys going south before 6." Patty Smith said she saw "nothing." JCB was at Patty Smith's residence when she was questioned by police. Guess that little explanation of hers stating "oh, the cops never asked me anything -- that's why I never came forward" really is nothing but b.s.

This is a bombshell.

Here, she clearly states it was before 6. Twenty years later, she states it was at 6:30.

 

[Userid]

Compassionate Reader wrote:

Excellent. I've said it a few times, but not as well as this.

To single out the many, many things that implicate TH, and then attempt to make an exception out of each and every one, well that only gives me the impression of "clutching straws" and makes me wonder what kind of motivation is behind doing this. Meticulously disassembling the suspicions against TH so that someone else has more room to be suspicious? JMB perhaps? I somehow don't think that will work. Besides, have we got a suspect with half as much stacked against them ? A lot of shady characters, yes, but nothing solid. A "complete stranger" as the perp, does not fit into many aspects of the case, and I’m certain it wasn’t the WM3.

It's ironic you say "clutching straws," because a lot of the time, that's what I see people doing with TH -- look no further than the "he didn't drop his cigarette quick enough" argument.

People clutch straws on both sides. That's all anyone can do. The PL director clutched straws when they implicated JMB initially; and we all clutched them too. Now, we're clutching at straws with TH, in the same exact way. Due to the lack of concrete evidence. I guess some people feel the evidence against TH is concrete enough for them, because they're desperate for an answer. I understand that, but quite simply, I think it's misguided and I think the bias affects judgement.

In my view, the "bite mark" and the hair (1% of the population/secondary transfer) is equivalent to clutching straws.