Misskelley's I.Q.

[UdbCrzy2]

Perhaps believed by those who aren't familiar with what actually took place.

Could you show us when this took place?

Because Misskelley had already given his own attorneys a taped confession days before this meeting ever happened - days before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him.

Yes, I suppose threatening to have your client dragged away in handcuffs to prevent him from giving a statement could be considered "strongly advised".

Rather drastic measures, don't you think?

It's almost as though there is no merit to the argument that Jessie is of lower intelligence and fits the profile of someone who could be easily influenced or led.

You are more than a little confused.

Misskelley was taken to Joe Calvin's office, who was not a party to this case.

And he was taken there at his attorney's request.

I can show you if you like?


Can you show us where Misskelley ever made this claim?

I'll give you a hint - it's in none of his statements, and he denied it under oath.

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that Misskelley gave his own attorneys a taped statement before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him.

I suspect that's because you really don't know much about it.

Here, This might clear some things up for you:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html

The reality here isn't all that complicated.

Stidham knew his client was guilty because his client consistently told him so, yet he convinced Misskelley he could beat the case with Ofshe.

When he failed, he did everything in his power to prevent the public from learning this.

I think Stidham's partner Crow summed it up best:

At one point Mr. Stidham did call your Honor, and I think at the point where he asked that -- told the Court that Jessie Misskelley needed a psychiatric evaluation, Mr. Crow, who was sitting next to me at that time, made the comment that someone in the room needed a psychiatric evaluation but he wasn't sure that it was Jessie Misskelley

Yeah, that's correct. And then he said this from the same link:

And at that point I was -- since other things had developed in talking with Mr. Misskelley over the weekend, I had concerns because in every conversation I have had with him he indicates insistently that he was present, he did observe these things and he does want to testify and can't understand why his attorney
are not interested in that.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think I've tried to clear up the whole IQ discrepancy in another thread. I'll try again here. An IQ test is given in two parts: verbal and performance. The full scale IQ score is a combination of the two parts with the verbal portion carrying more weight. If Jessie scored 85 or 88 on the performance portion of an IQ test, but his full scale score is substantially lower, that simply means that he is adequate at manual tasks but not good at all at the verbal tasks (comprehension, calculation, etc.) that most people associate with being intelligent.

It's like the kid who has a 1.0 GPA telling his mother, "Look! I got a B in PE!" Those two performance scores pointed out by the prosecution were pointed out only to try to confuse the jury into believing that Jessie wasn't borderline retarded when, in fact, his full scale score (which has consistently been in the 70 - 74 range) shows that he is.

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

Like others, I don't give much credibility at all to Jessie's statements. In fact, knowing what I know after teaching teenagers (many of whom have IQs in Jessie's range) for 25 years, I find his statements highly suspicious not to mention so error-filled that his original statement (6/3/93) had to be "corrected" before a judge would issue the arrest warrants. IMO, this is a clear case of coercion plus the unethical use of a mentally challenged youth to get arrest warrants when there actually was no real evidence to warrant the warrants!

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Dr. Rickert (Defense Expert Witness) states that previous testings done his IQ is 88 and 84
http://callahan.8k.com/cgi-bin/i/images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2165.jpg

Not like a third grader
http://callahan.8k.com/cgi-bin/i/images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2181.jpg

He couldn't fake being retarded even when he wanted to



Another Defense Expert Witness Dr. Wilkins testimony:

DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?

WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.

DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?

WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.

<<snip>>

DAVIS: So let&#8212;knew the difference between right and wrong?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And he had the ability to form his conduct to that required by the law at the time of this incident?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And he wasn&#8217;t mentally retarded?

WILKINS: No.


http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm not saying that he is retarded. I'm saying that he is borderline retarded. I'm saying that I know from experience working with people in his IQ range that, when he finds himself in a situation of intense questioning, he will say whatever he thinks the questioner wants to hear in order to make the questioning stop.

This is why his IQ is important. People with IQs in that range consistently say whatever they think a questioner wants to hear. Sometimes it's because they want to hide the fact that they are of limited intelligence. Usually it's just because they want the questioning to stop.

Jessie made the 6/3/93 statements because he thought that by making them, he could go home. Of course, the WMPD was not stupid enough to allow that promise to be documented. However, that's what Jessie said happened. He said in an interview that they told him what to say.

The fact is that originally Jessie told the truth - said that he didn't know anything about the murders. They kept questioning him. He was coached into a story, and led to believe that he would get reward money by naming Damien. However, he implicated himself and we all know the rest of the story. Over eighteen years later, he again tells the State what they want to hear, but this time he gets to go home.

None of Jessie's statements were accurate enough for me to believe for one minute that he was involved with the murders. IMO, the WMPD knew that he was "slow" (although they deny it) and used this knowledge to get him to implicate Damien who was their target. IMO, that is unethical.

Again, where's the evidence? It doesn't really matter what Jessie's IQ is if there's no evidence that he or the others were involved in these murders. The only reason his intelligence is discussed is because his statements are all the real evidence that the prosecution has. If his statements are bogus, then the whole house of cards falls to the ground.

So, if he made the statements because the police told him what to say, that means that he wasn't there, and neither were Jason or Damien. Bottom line, there is no proof that these three men killed those little boys except the error-filled, coerced statements of a mentally challenged youth. Only in a corrupt judicial system in a small town could these convictions have happened.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

CR: You are not qualified to say that he's borderline because that's the job of a qualified professional who has examined him.

He knew right from wrong.

He repeatedly made the confessions (statements) on several times even when his own attorney was present.

If the three had not plead guilty to the murders and they had a new trial, Misskelley would have certainly testified against the other two.

He also has a speech impediment and an Arkansas accent. I don't know what your experience is with southern accents or people who have speech impediments.

 

[claudicici]

" Misskelley would have certainly testified against the other two. "
I think you need to add IN YOUR OPINION to that statement unless you have a link because IN MY OPINION that is complete nonsense.

 

[Cappuccino]

Wishful thinking.

Jessie didn't testify at the first trial, and there's no reason to believe he would have at any new trial. However, I think some nons are beginning to realise that Jessie is all there ever was to the case for the prosecution, hence the wishful thinking.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

We don't have to worry about any hearing or a new trial since the 3-convicted have since went ahead with their plan to plea guilty to murdering 3-innocent and helpless Cub Scouts who were brutally murdered while being bound and nude.

These guys are sadists. Beaten to death and drowned. I do think there was some sexual act because why were those little boys stripped naked and hog-tied?

Instead of making public appearances like they are celebrities they should be ashamed of what they did, but they're not...

What kind of a person does something like this and has no remorse?

Do you know what a sociopath is?

 

[Cappuccino]

Yes I do. Do you know what a miscarriage of justice is?

These three innocent men are now free to get on with their lives, thankfully. Now, obviously you are also free to continue posting away about how much you hate them on an Internet forum, and how you are absolutely convinced they're guilty. For myself, like most supporters, the argument is now no longer a priority. We're more concerned with alternative theories of the crime and alternative suspects. Which means I doubt you'll be interacting with us much from now on, so - have fun, and good luck with your endeavours.

 

[claudicici]

We don't have to worry about any hearing or a new trial since the 3-convicted have since went ahead with their plan to plea guilty to murdering 3-innocent and helpless Cub Scouts who were brutally murdered while being bound and nude.
You seem to forget that they maintained their innocence

These guys are sadists. Beaten to death and drowned. I do think there was some sexual act because why were those little boys stripped naked and hog-tied?

I totally agree that whoever did this is a sadist and I also agree that there are strong sexual undertones in this crime.
I'm almost positive that whoever committed the crime was sexually abused themselves.Neither Damien,Jason or Jessie were.

Instead of making public appearances like they are celebrities they should be ashamed of what they did, but they're not...

What kind of a person does something like this and has no remorse?
In this case three guys that are completely innocent.

Do you know what a sociopath is?
Whoever committed this crime I'm sure was one.According to all the mental evaluations Damien had he was never diagnosed as a sociopath and I think it's pretty obvious neither Jason nor Jessie have any sociopathic traits.

:waitasec:

 

[I Must Break You]

Neither make him handicapped either.

Except Misskelley maintained his participation in this crime for months after his arrest - even giving his own attorneys a taped confession in private.

So much for his statements being the result of police pressure.

As did all four of the Norfolk four... So explain that one away to me please. Oh and all four of the Norfolk four were of average to above average intelligence.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

CR: You are not qualified to say that he's borderline because that's the job of a qualified professional who has examined him.

This is from the link I previously provided:

"70-79 - Borderline retarded

Limited trainability. Have difficulty with everyday demands like using a phone book, reading bus or train schedules, banking, filling out forms, using appliances like a video recorder, microwave oven or computer, etcetera, and therefore require assistance from relatives or social agencies in the management of their affairs. Can be employed in simple tasks but require supervision."

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

I am not judging him to be borderline mentally retarded. His full scale IQ has consistently tested in the borderline retarded range.

He knew right from wrong.

I have never claimed that Jessie doesn't know right from wrong. I have never seen a supporter claim that, either. People in his IQ range do know right from wrong. His IQ is only important because people with IQ's in that range are highly suggestible.

He repeatedly made the confessions (statements) on several times even when his own attorney was present.

I don't care how many times you tell a lie, it doesn't become the truth. None of Jessie's statements are supported by the evidence at the discovery ditch, or any where else. That's why I discount his statements - they don't match the evidence. I don't care who was there. Having his attorney present (who IMO he no longer trusted) doesn't make his statements accurate.

If the three had not plead guilty to the murders and they had a new trial, Misskelley would have certainly testified against the other two.

That's your opinion, and I disagree. Jessie professes his innocence as do the others. So, I would have to doubt that he would say something else if there were a trial.

He also has a speech impediment and an Arkansas accent. I don't know what your experience is with southern accents or people who have speech impediments.

I'm a Southerner myself, so, I'm very familiar with Southern accents, although I don't know what that (or a speech impediment which I don't hear) has to do with his statements, however. I have taught people with speech impediments, and, as I said, I don't detect a speech impediment in Jessie's speech. What I hear is the voice of a borderline mentally retarded individual with a Southern accent.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

OK, Let's talk about his IQ.

In fact, Let's look at the testimony of his own witness, Dr. William Wilkins:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?
WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

His Performance IQ was 75 in the test he took for the trial.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?
WILKINS: 88.

So his performance IQ plunged 13 points from the previous year.

In fact, prior to the test given to him for his trial it was consistently average...

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?
WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.
DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?
WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.
DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.
WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.
DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?
WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

So his previous performance scores were average - he's charged with murder, and in a test given by his witness, his score suddenly drops 13 points.

You suppose maybe he was faking?

Let's see what his witness had to say about that...

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?
WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.
DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?
WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.
DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.
WILKINS: Uh, very high.
DAVIS: Very high?
WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.
DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?
WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.
DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?
WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?
WILKINS: Yes.

So his own witness got caught on the stand "mispronouncing" Misskelley's malingering index - when the actual score strongly indicated he was faking to aid in his defense.

These aren't opinions, they are the documented results of his testing.

Of course this wasn't the first time Wilkins got caught "mispronouncing" MMPI results...

A psychologist who evaluated Jessie Misskelley Jr. as borderline mentally retarded and very suggestible went before the state Board of Psychological Examiners last month and had his practice limited.
Dr. William Wilkins of Jonesboro must practice under the direction of a supervisor and cannot handle sexual abuse or neuro-psychology cases, he said under rigorous questioning from prosecutors this morning in the capital murder trial of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.

Why was his licenses restricted?

An evaluation of Wilkins done by another psychologist reported concerns about Wilkins' lack of knowledge of fundamental psychological defects and the scales used in scoring the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality test (MMPI) and Wexler tests, common psychological and intelligence evaluation tools. Wilkins used both those tests, along with the Rorshchach test, in evaluating Misskelley.


http://callahan.8k.com/cg...ingtimes/ET020294_01.jpg

The fact is, Misskelley wasn't retarded - even when he TRIED to be.

Yes he isn't retarded as the defense would have liked the jury to believe.

I heard that he has even enrolled into college. And has even held a few jobs.

And he's not retarded enough to receive any disability benefits either.

I hope he gets to interview soon WITHOUT having Lorri or Damien involved.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I'm a Southerner myself, so, I'm very familiar with Southern accents, although I don't know what that (or a speech impediment which I don't hear) has to do with his statements, however. I have taught people with speech impediments, and, as I said, I don't detect a speech impediment in Jessie's speech. What I hear is the voice of a borderline mentally retarded individual with a Southern accent.

Unless you are a licensed speech therapist from Arkansas, how can you tell. Interestingly, I work with a man from Arkansas. He sounds very similar to JM. He is an attorney.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes he isn't retarded as the defense would have liked the jury to believe.

Again, no one is saying he is retarded. He is borderline retarded. Please refer to the link and information I provided above about classification based on full scale IQ,

I heard that he has even enrolled into college. And has even held a few jobs.

He has enrolled in GED classes at the local community college. In case you don't know, GED is a "general equivalency diploma" which is issued in lieu of a high school diploma. Community colleges often offer GED classes for adults without a high school diploma so that they can better themselves. Community colleges also offer vocational training for those wanting to learn a skill. Jessie is simply not enrolled in college-level classes, and implying that he is is misleading, if not outright lying. Yes, he can hold a job, such as a roofer or a construction worker. He can do unskilled and semi-skilled manual labor jobs, but he could never be a clerk in a store or anything like that.

And he's not retarded enough to receive any disability benefits either.

We really don't know that since, AFAIK, he's never applied for such. Maybe he should. However, he has a lot of pride, and I don't know that he would. However, with this bogus conviction on his record, I don't know if he would be eligible. (BTW, Damien did so when he was attempting to live on his own at 18, and IIRC, he did so at the recommendation of a social worker.)

I hope he gets to interview soon WITHOUT having Lorri or Damien involved.

I would like to hear from him, too. However, from what I have heard and read, he is still uncomfortable in large groups and with questioning. IMO, this is not an indication of guilt but simply a result of his mental disability.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Unless you are a licensed speech therapist from Arkansas, how can you tell. Interestingly, I work with a man from Arkansas. He sounds very similar to JM. He is an attorney.

Really, whether or not Jessie has a speech impediment is immaterial to his guilt or innocence. Are you a speech therapist? Do you believe the attorney to whom you refer has a speech impediment? Does that make him a murderer, too? Just wonderin'.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

Really, whether or not Jessie has a speech impediment is immaterial to his guilt or innocence. Are you a speech therapist? Do you believe the attorney to whom you refer has a speech impediment? Does that make him a murderer, too? Just wonderin'.

I agree it's a moot point. As is the fact he is dumb.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree it's a moot point. As is the fact he is dumb.

Except the fact that he has a low IQ makes him suggestible and therefore makes it easier for someone like the police to put words into his mouth. That is the significance of his low IQ. I don't think a speech impediment would impact at all on his ability to provide accurate information.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

The fact he is suggestible makes it more likely that Echols got him to go along with the murder.

 

[iluvmua]

CR: You are not qualified to say that he's borderline because that's the job of a qualified professional who has examined him.

He knew right from wrong.

He repeatedly made the confessions (statements) on several times even when his own attorney was present.

If the three had not plead guilty to the murders and they had a new trial, Misskelley would have certainly testified against the other two.

He also has a speech impediment and an Arkansas accent. I don't know what your experience is with southern accents or people who have speech impediments.

I have a cousin with a speech impediment and he knows right from wrong. Jessie is not retarded, not even by a long shot.