Jessie Misskelly Second Confession
- Thread starter iluvmua
- Start date
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
gryncher,
I do not support the release of child murderers. However, I do support the release of three innocent young men who were victims of ignorance, poverty, Satanic panic and small town injustice.
I do not support the release of child murderers. However, I do support the release of three innocent young men who were victims of ignorance, poverty, Satanic panic and small town injustice.
Not sure who that might be, but the WM3 committed these murders. It's so obvious it hurts.
You obviously need, beyond reason, logic and common sense, these 3 murderers to be innocent.
But they aren't, and everyone who matters knows that.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
gryncher,
I believe that the WM3 are innocent. You obviously think otherwise. Personally attacking me will not change my belief (really knowledge based on research and my personal understanding of teens) about this case, but go on, if you must. However, this board doesn't tolerate that type of attack for very long.
minazoe,
The evidentiary hearing begins on December 5, 2011, at least for Damien and Jason. One of Jessie's lawyers may have a conflict, and his hearing may be postponed. We will have to wait and see on that point.
If (IMO when) a new trial is ordered, the State has a time frame (I believe 45 days) in which to decide if they wish to pursue a new trial. If the State decides to retry, then it will be back to square one - the defendants will be presumed innocent. Right now, at the hearing, the burden of proof has shifted to the defense because the WM3 have been convicted (IMO falsely) of these murders.
If the State decides not to retry, the Three are freed. If the State decides to retry them (or to try someone else at a later date), again it would be back to square one - presumption of innocence, etc. It is my understanding that the Three would remain incarcerated (I just don't know where) if the State decides to immediately retry them. However, since the convictions would be vacated, I don't believe that Damien would remain on Death Row as he would not be sentence to death if the original conviction is vacated.
If no new trial is ordered, Damien will proceed to the Federal level with his appeals and Jason and Jessie will await the outcome of their State-level Rule 37 hearing, the outcome of which has not yet been decided as it was placed on hold until the ruling from the Oral Arguments before the ASSC and now is still on hold until after the evidentiary hearing. Jason and Jessie will continue with the appeals process at the State level until all appeals have been exhausted. If all State appeals fail, then they, too, will proceed to the Federal level.
IMO, no further appeals will be necessary as I believe that Judge Laser will vacate the original verdicts and grant a new trial. Unfortunately, I don't believe the State will retry the Three. They will give some lame excuse, but they will never admit that they made a mistake.
However, if the State does opt to retry, IMO the Three will be found innocent on all charges as there is no physical evidence against them. The only thing that the State has is Jessie's ramblings, which will be dissected and discredited at the hearing to such a point as to be totally meaningless. Therefore, there will be no evidence against the Three that a reasonable juror could use to convict.
Remember, Judge Laser is to rule based on what he believes a new (untainted, hopefully) jury would do. If he believes that a new jury would convict, he denies a new trial. If he believes a new jury would acquit, he vacates the original verdicts and orders a new trial.
That's why I believe that the State won't retry the Three. If Judge Laser grants a new trial, he is saying that he doesn't believe that there is enough evidence to convict. I just hope that the State arrests, tries and convicts the real killer of these three little boys so justice can finally be served.
I believe that the WM3 are innocent. You obviously think otherwise. Personally attacking me will not change my belief (really knowledge based on research and my personal understanding of teens) about this case, but go on, if you must. However, this board doesn't tolerate that type of attack for very long.
minazoe,
The evidentiary hearing begins on December 5, 2011, at least for Damien and Jason. One of Jessie's lawyers may have a conflict, and his hearing may be postponed. We will have to wait and see on that point.
If (IMO when) a new trial is ordered, the State has a time frame (I believe 45 days) in which to decide if they wish to pursue a new trial. If the State decides to retry, then it will be back to square one - the defendants will be presumed innocent. Right now, at the hearing, the burden of proof has shifted to the defense because the WM3 have been convicted (IMO falsely) of these murders.
If the State decides not to retry, the Three are freed. If the State decides to retry them (or to try someone else at a later date), again it would be back to square one - presumption of innocence, etc. It is my understanding that the Three would remain incarcerated (I just don't know where) if the State decides to immediately retry them. However, since the convictions would be vacated, I don't believe that Damien would remain on Death Row as he would not be sentence to death if the original conviction is vacated.
If no new trial is ordered, Damien will proceed to the Federal level with his appeals and Jason and Jessie will await the outcome of their State-level Rule 37 hearing, the outcome of which has not yet been decided as it was placed on hold until the ruling from the Oral Arguments before the ASSC and now is still on hold until after the evidentiary hearing. Jason and Jessie will continue with the appeals process at the State level until all appeals have been exhausted. If all State appeals fail, then they, too, will proceed to the Federal level.
IMO, no further appeals will be necessary as I believe that Judge Laser will vacate the original verdicts and grant a new trial. Unfortunately, I don't believe the State will retry the Three. They will give some lame excuse, but they will never admit that they made a mistake.
However, if the State does opt to retry, IMO the Three will be found innocent on all charges as there is no physical evidence against them. The only thing that the State has is Jessie's ramblings, which will be dissected and discredited at the hearing to such a point as to be totally meaningless. Therefore, there will be no evidence against the Three that a reasonable juror could use to convict.
Remember, Judge Laser is to rule based on what he believes a new (untainted, hopefully) jury would do. If he believes that a new jury would convict, he denies a new trial. If he believes a new jury would acquit, he vacates the original verdicts and orders a new trial.
That's why I believe that the State won't retry the Three. If Judge Laser grants a new trial, he is saying that he doesn't believe that there is enough evidence to convict. I just hope that the State arrests, tries and convicts the real killer of these three little boys so justice can finally be served.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
There is no physical evidence implicating the West Memphis Three. The two hairs are physical evidence that implicates a step father. (61% of all murdered children are murdered by a parent, step parent or family friend. None of the WM3 fit into any of those groups.) There is also a mountain of circumstantial evidence implicating that same step father. The WM3 were convicted on less circumstantial evidence than exists against this step father. If one looks at all of the evidence, test results, etc. that have surfaced since the original trials, IMO a normally intelligent person will readily see that the wrong people are in prison.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Quote from gryncher: "Why did Todd Moore see Damien in that area when they were searching for Michael?"
After further investigation, I have discovered that this "sighting" supposedly occurred in the early morning hours of May 6th, around 5:30 or 6 am, according to a statement originally made by Dana back in 2002 on a "non" board and apparently revived recently by Todd over on the Hoax board. My question is this: Why didn't either Todd or Dana mention this "sighting" to the police at the time (1993)? If my son had been murdered and I saw the prime suspect in the area the morning the bodies were found, I believe I would tell the police. However, there are no recorded statements where Todd or Dana have told of this "sighting" to the police. In other words, they have not testified to this "sighting" under oath or even given a statement to the police regarding such a "sighting." Just like the black bum TH started talking about for the first time in 2007 (that Pam denied), this "sighting" sounds very suspicious to me.
After further investigation, I have discovered that this "sighting" supposedly occurred in the early morning hours of May 6th, around 5:30 or 6 am, according to a statement originally made by Dana back in 2002 on a "non" board and apparently revived recently by Todd over on the Hoax board. My question is this: Why didn't either Todd or Dana mention this "sighting" to the police at the time (1993)? If my son had been murdered and I saw the prime suspect in the area the morning the bodies were found, I believe I would tell the police. However, there are no recorded statements where Todd or Dana have told of this "sighting" to the police. In other words, they have not testified to this "sighting" under oath or even given a statement to the police regarding such a "sighting." Just like the black bum TH started talking about for the first time in 2007 (that Pam denied), this "sighting" sounds very suspicious to me.
justthinkin
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 179
First of all, how would Todd know a suspect before the police had even identified any suspects? I don't believe the man is omnipotent, but perhaps you do.
According to Todd, neither he nor Dana recognized Damien in court as the person they saw the morning of the 6th. because Damien had been cleaned up, given a haircut, and nice clothes for the courtroom.
It was after seeing pictures of what Damien looked like prior to the trial that they made the
connection.
And there you have it. Take it or leave it. Personally, I choose to believe it was Damien they saw the morning of the 6th.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
However, neither Todd nor Dana told the police about seeing some stranger when they were searching for Michael. If they had reported the sighting to the police, they could have described the person they saw and the police would have known it was Damien, even if Todd and Dana didn't. They didn't report seeing this person because, IMO, like TH's black bum, this sighting never happened. It's an attempt to keep three innocent young men incarcerated unjustly. If Todd and Dana didn't recognize Damien at the time, why didn't they tell the police about seeing him whenever they realized that it was him they saw? Again, it's highly suspicious.
Sharrib
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
I am posting here because I cannot find a thread with Jessie's first confession.I am referring to his first confession.
Jessie describes the scene and speaks about dem having sex with the victims..He keeps saying they screwed them and stuff..and stuff and stuff..What is this stuff??
Is it because he cannot describe much more because he did not witness this happening and he's just trying to pluck the memory out of his head from past *advertiser censored* movies he's watched..
He also describes Damien and Jason screwing them most of the time that the attacks were taking place..Sorry to be so crude but how the hell do they keep erections, both Damien and Jason, during these attacks and as Jessie describes, for a while after..I don't get this...Jason comes across as very quiet and submissive..I doubt he would have got an erection just because he was following in Damien's footsteps or if Damien demanded him to..
Apologies for the crudeness but Jessie's statement just does not make any sense whatsoever.
Anyone with views on this..??
Jessie describes the scene and speaks about dem having sex with the victims..He keeps saying they screwed them and stuff..and stuff and stuff..What is this stuff??
Is it because he cannot describe much more because he did not witness this happening and he's just trying to pluck the memory out of his head from past *advertiser censored* movies he's watched..
He also describes Damien and Jason screwing them most of the time that the attacks were taking place..Sorry to be so crude but how the hell do they keep erections, both Damien and Jason, during these attacks and as Jessie describes, for a while after..I don't get this...Jason comes across as very quiet and submissive..I doubt he would have got an erection just because he was following in Damien's footsteps or if Damien demanded him to..
Apologies for the crudeness but Jessie's statement just does not make any sense whatsoever.
Anyone with views on this..??
minazoe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,730
- Reaction score
- 19,498
I have read the very sad book about the M3...as a city girl, I am somewhat streetwise, and something about these "false confessions" bothers me.
I want to know how and why a false confession occured. I know there is a false confession in a number of cases , so they actually do occur.
but, that said...there is some ring of truth in this confession...I think it's where JM says that the one got away and he chased him down.
that part really bothered me...because it is complex and imaginative if it is a lie...and JM is hardly complex or imaginative...
so that said...I worry...
I want to know how and why a false confession occured. I know there is a false confession in a number of cases , so they actually do occur.
but, that said...there is some ring of truth in this confession...I think it's where JM says that the one got away and he chased him down.
that part really bothered me...because it is complex and imaginative if it is a lie...and JM is hardly complex or imaginative...
so that said...I worry...
Sharrib
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
Minazoe
Jessie's confession just does not fit the evidence.He was also just standing far away from Damien and Jason and only chased Michael Moore so he must have caught Michael, brought him back and then stood and watched.He confessed that he left the scene so many times.I am sure Jessie was told to confess by someone who wanted the reward money..My opinion of course..
There are posts about False Confessions in this Forum..There is a 9 minute clip about false confessions.Take a look at the Innocence Project (dot org) too..So far there have been over 200 exonerations and a high percentage of those were false confessions..
Jessie's confession just does not fit the evidence.He was also just standing far away from Damien and Jason and only chased Michael Moore so he must have caught Michael, brought him back and then stood and watched.He confessed that he left the scene so many times.I am sure Jessie was told to confess by someone who wanted the reward money..My opinion of course..
There are posts about False Confessions in this Forum..There is a 9 minute clip about false confessions.Take a look at the Innocence Project (dot org) too..So far there have been over 200 exonerations and a high percentage of those were false confessions..
minazoe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,730
- Reaction score
- 19,498
Thank you for this...I did read the compelling story, I did have a feeling that they were innocent...I have watched the television programs...where Larry King did a thingie and ID channel etc...I know I know...but I have never heard this theroy about reward money...this makes lightbulbs go off in my head...thank you, your post is very helpful.:rocker:
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Here is an excerpt from Jessie Misskelley, Sr.'s testimony at Jessie, Jr.'s trial:
Q: Do you remember having a conversation with little Jessie and Officer Allen about the reward money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you remember what the nature of that conversation was?
A: Mike Allen was, and Jessie was joking about the, he said, forty thousand dollar reward. He said if Jessie, if they get a conviction out of this that Jessie would get the forty thousand dollar reward and he's gonna buy him a new truck. And Jessie's laughing and said "No I'm not either." He said "I'm gonna buy my daddy a truck and I'm gonna take his old one."
Here's a link to the entire testimony:
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/jessiemsr.html
I remember hearing that there were other witnesses who discussed the reward money, but I can't recall offhand who they were. However, I know that Jessie and his father believed that Jessie would get the reward money if Jessie helped the police arrest Damien.
Q: Do you remember having a conversation with little Jessie and Officer Allen about the reward money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you remember what the nature of that conversation was?
A: Mike Allen was, and Jessie was joking about the, he said, forty thousand dollar reward. He said if Jessie, if they get a conviction out of this that Jessie would get the forty thousand dollar reward and he's gonna buy him a new truck. And Jessie's laughing and said "No I'm not either." He said "I'm gonna buy my daddy a truck and I'm gonna take his old one."
Here's a link to the entire testimony:
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/jessiemsr.html
I remember hearing that there were other witnesses who discussed the reward money, but I can't recall offhand who they were. However, I know that Jessie and his father believed that Jessie would get the reward money if Jessie helped the police arrest Damien.
Sharrib
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks CR..I knew I had read it somewhere..Great you know where all the info is..:great:
Please go to Callahan's....... you can't really go by the docs, TV shows etc.
http://callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html
http://callahan.8k.com/documents_az.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Let me cut to the chase for you.
Here's Jessie's first statement:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html
(This statement was so error-filled that the judge would not issue arrest warrants based on it, hence, the need for the clarification statement.
Here's the "corrected" statement:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html
(Please note the leading questions throughout this statement.)
Here's the incident report where Jessie "confessed" on his way to prison: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html
(Please note that these are the words of the police officers, not Jessie.)
Here's the infamous post-conviction statement:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html
[Please note the animosity Jessie exhibits toward his own attorneys. Also, please note that Stidham has stated that Jessie was questioned repeatedly against the orders of his attorneys while in prison in an attempt to get Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason. This statement was the result. Then, after speaking with his father (who told him to tell the truth) Jessie refused to testify against Damien and Jason.]
Here's Jessie's first statement:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html
(This statement was so error-filled that the judge would not issue arrest warrants based on it, hence, the need for the clarification statement.
Here's the "corrected" statement:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html
(Please note the leading questions throughout this statement.)
Here's the incident report where Jessie "confessed" on his way to prison: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html
(Please note that these are the words of the police officers, not Jessie.)
Here's the infamous post-conviction statement:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html
[Please note the animosity Jessie exhibits toward his own attorneys. Also, please note that Stidham has stated that Jessie was questioned repeatedly against the orders of his attorneys while in prison in an attempt to get Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason. This statement was the result. Then, after speaking with his father (who told him to tell the truth) Jessie refused to testify against Damien and Jason.]
This 2nd Confession is why I remain on the fence on this case. I understand there is no physical, forensic or eye-witness evidence that condemns the WM3. But this 2nd confession (I'm not counting the one to the cops on the way to prison as that is heresay) is what's hanging me up.
I've read this thread and I'd be interested in hearing how the supporters exonerate Jessie based on this confession (and if you wanted to throw in the Bible confession as well, that would be awesome, too). From what I understand so far, there were no scrapes or bruises on DE the day after the murders that would show he had been in a fight. Also, there are no bruises on the kids showing they had been beat up. Also, there was no "bark" or "stick debris" in the wounds of the kids.
To all of this, I would say:
1. I believe it's possible to hit someone without leaving a mark on you or them.
2. I also believe it's possible there was no stick debris left in the wounds as well as when they were thrown in the water, it could have washed away.
Can you please give me something else that doesn't make sense. Because to me, I just have to believe at least JM was there by these confessions alone.
I've read this thread and I'd be interested in hearing how the supporters exonerate Jessie based on this confession (and if you wanted to throw in the Bible confession as well, that would be awesome, too). From what I understand so far, there were no scrapes or bruises on DE the day after the murders that would show he had been in a fight. Also, there are no bruises on the kids showing they had been beat up. Also, there was no "bark" or "stick debris" in the wounds of the kids.
To all of this, I would say:
1. I believe it's possible to hit someone without leaving a mark on you or them.
2. I also believe it's possible there was no stick debris left in the wounds as well as when they were thrown in the water, it could have washed away.
Can you please give me something else that doesn't make sense. Because to me, I just have to believe at least JM was there by these confessions alone.
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,214
Seriously?? Jessie can't describe the crime scene accurately, let alone the crime. He has some Blue Lagoon type setting in his imagination filled with deep, clear blue waters and absolutely no idea of the geography of the BB woods. Jessie's time line doesn't make sense either - those three would need to be super fit speed walkers to get to and from the BB woods and commit a triple murder in the time frame Jessie gives.
I'd like to throw a question back to anyone who believes Jessie was there. Why didn't the police ask him any questions which they didn't already know the answers to, and which they could then have gone and verified? Eg, what happened to the childrens' missing clothes, or what happened to Christopher Byers missing body parts?
Also, why didn't they follow standard procedure and take Jessie to the crime scene and get him to talk them through the crime?
I'm personally not convinced that the WMPD even believe Jessie was there.
I'd like to throw a question back to anyone who believes Jessie was there. Why didn't the police ask him any questions which they didn't already know the answers to, and which they could then have gone and verified? Eg, what happened to the childrens' missing clothes, or what happened to Christopher Byers missing body parts?
Also, why didn't they follow standard procedure and take Jessie to the crime scene and get him to talk them through the crime?
I'm personally not convinced that the WMPD even believe Jessie was there.
Yes, actually, I am serious. I'm not in the habit of typing just to hear my fingers click.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the case to answer your question above about why the police didn't ask him questions they didn't already know. Sorry.
I believe I saw/read somewhere though, that the PD didn't take JM to the crime scene because it was crawling with reporters and they didn't want anyone to get the idea yet that they had a confession. I, personally, think this was stupid. JM should have gone to the scene of the crime and relayed exactly what he saw - if anything.
I'm in the process of reading the confession I questioned again. I just want to make sure I'm seeing (or not seeing) what you are.