Misskelley's I.Q.

[Compassionate Reader]

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

However, he knows right from wrong. Being suggestible won't necessarily cause a person to do something wrong on a suggestion. It's much more likely that a suggestible person would agree with an authority figure (like the police) than it is that the same suggestible person would commit a crime.

"Jessie is not retarded, not even by a long shot."

He is borderline retarded based on his full-scale IQ score. Please refer to the link I provided above for documentation.

(Please would someone PM me about how to "multi quote" as I tried the " and didn't know what to do next? TIA)

 

[AngelontheRiver]

He is either suggestible or not. He can't only be suggestible when it benefits the defense.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

He is either suggestible or not. He can't only be suggestible when it benefits the defense.

People in the "borderline retarded" IQ range are suggestible when it comes to a questioning situation because they are seeking to escape from the questioning. Therefore, they will often repeat what is suggested to them by their interrogators. However, that does not necessarily transfer into actions, i.e., following another person into an illegal activity.

The suggestible nature of those with low IQs is simply a defense mechanism to allow them to escape unwanted (or uncomfortable) interrogation. If another person wanted to pressure one with a low IQ into doing something illegal (or immoral), it would have to be done through intense questioning, not through merely asking or suggesting. It's kind of like saying that hypnotizing someone can make them murder. All hypnotists point out that you cannot be forced to do something against your moral code under hypnosis.

It must be pointed out here that Jessie and Damien were not "friends." In fact, Jessie knew Jason when they were young, but Jessie and Damien were merely acquaintances, through Jason. So, I seriously doubt that Damien could pressure Jessie into doing something. Jason might have had more influence on Jessie, but I don't think Jason would have pressured Jessie into murdering those three little boys.

Jessie's friends will still have a great deal of influence on his perception of "right" and "wrong" however, but this is true of many of us with "normal" IQs. However, I don't think Jason pressured Jessie into murder as I don't think Jason himself is capable of murder. But, hypothetically, if Jason had wanted to exert such pressure, he might have been successful.

(I recommend reading the GQ article if you haven't, especially the part where Jason talks about the prison personnel that rejoiced upon his release. They recognized that he doesn't have the temperament of a murderer. Therefore, he would not have tried to convince Jessie to participate in murder.)

Jessie wouldn't have thought up the murder plot himself nor would he have been unduly influenced by Damien. So, his suggestibility is only applicable to the statement obtained through intense interrogation, not to actions taken at the possible suggestions of Damien. Again,this is a direct result of his low IQ and his reaction to questioning as a result of that IQ.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

People in the "borderline retarded" IQ range are suggestible when it comes to a questioning situation because they are seeking to escape from the questioning. Therefore, they will often repeat what is suggested to them by their interrogators. However, that does not necessarily transfer into actions, i.e., following another person into an illegal activity.

The suggestible nature of those with low IQs is simply a defense mechanism to allow them to escape unwanted (or uncomfortable) interrogation. If another person wanted to pressure one with a low IQ into doing something illegal (or immoral), it would have to be done through intense questioning, not through merely asking or suggesting. It's kind of like saying that hypnotizing someone can make them murder. All hypnotists point out that you cannot be forced to do something against your moral code under hypnosis.





--May I ask where this information came from? Can you cite a study?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"Suggestibility has to do with the probability of giving a false testimony and not the likelihood of an individual to commit a crime (Gudjonsson & Clark, 1986)."

http://ideasinpsychology.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/the-gudjonsson-suggestibility-scale/

 

[AngelontheRiver]

He was tested after the fact. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886907002863

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The WMPD would never have tested him before the fact. Their whole case would have been upset. The point remains that he was tested, and that it appeared that his suggestibility (due to low IQ) could be responsible for a false statement. IMO, it was.

 

[Cappuccino]

He was tested after the fact. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886907002863

I can't see anything in your link which says that being tested after the fact undermines the results of the test.

The vast majority of people would be tested after the fact anyway. Police depts don't routinely test people's score on the Gudjonsson scale before they interview them, those tests are usually carried out after a person has made a confession.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

The point of the study was that the results become unreliable if the subject knows the purpose of the test.

 

[Cappuccino]

The point of the study was that the results become unreliable if the subject knows the purpose of the test.

That's not clear at all from the link you posted. It might be better if you found a study on the subject which doesn't require us to pay to see the entire article.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

Sorry. Most newer published studies require subscriptions. I don't know a free way for you to see them. I won't link to them again.

 

[Dysthymia]

Misskelley is uneducated. He is not retarded. He knew exactly what he was saying in all those confessions and the few "facts" that he "got wrong" was because he'd been drinking during the commission of the murders.

He was told by his attorney that he had to be portrayed as a person with a low IQ as a remedy to overcome his confessions. And he completely understood how to do that. I believe that scene is in PL1?

Misskelley simply couldn't live with what they'd done, so he told.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Misskelley's IQ was tested by the school system long before the murders. His IQ was the primary factor that made him eligible for Special Education classes in which he was enrolled from an early age. His full-scale IQ falls in the borderline retarded range.

IMO no one is so drunk that they don't know night from day unless they are unconscious, and unconscious people can't commit murder. In his original statement, he said that the little boys skipped school and that the murders took place at 9 am. That became noon and, after further prompting, early evening. That's not misleading the police or being drunk; that's leading questions (a perfectly legal maneuver by the police) to elicit desired information from a suggestible individual. However, the information was a false statement.

The only "facts" Misskelly "got right" in his original interviews were the ones that were public knowledge or on which he was "helped" (some might say coerced) by the interrogators. Everything else (time of day, with what the boys were tied, injuries from fists, etc., etc.) were initially incorrect. This is not the statement of someone trying to "mislead" the police; this is the statement of someone who only knew what everyone else knew, but who was hoping to get reward money and buy his daddy a new truck. Only an individual with limited mental capacities, like Jessie, would believe that he could convince the police that he saw the murders when he didn't. And only a police department as inept as the WMPD would believe Jessie.

 

[Dysthymia]

Unfortunately, I believe that human beings can and do many things while in varying degrees of inebriation. I also believe that those individuals can have impaired memory of what they did during those times.

I have often read the statement that Misskelley was tested in school and he tested as borderline retarded. But I have never seen the documentation of that online. Was this in his original trial and is it online? Because if it is, then I'll surely agree that Misskelley is mentally challanged.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Unfortunately, I believe that human beings can and do many things while in varying degrees of inebriation. I also believe that those individuals can have impaired memory of what they did during those times.

I have often read the statement that Misskelley was tested in school and he tested as borderline retarded. But I have never seen the documentation of that online. Was this in his original trial and is it online? Because if it is, then I'll surely agree that Misskelley is mentally challanged.

It's part of his school records which were not released. Mara Leveritt interviewed some of the teachers at his school who told her that his school scores were in line with the 72 - 74 scores that he received when retested prior to trial. They wouldn't be more specific because of legal issues. It's in Devil's Knot. Unfortunately, the school was not required to release his records, so they didn't.

ETA: As a retired teacher, I know that, for a student to be admitted into the Special Education program and to be enrolled in dedicated Special Education classes (as opposed to being placed in regular classes with modifications), the full scale IQ score must be between 71 and 74. Jessie was in such classes, so it follows that his full scale score consistently tested in that range. Special Education students are evaluated at least yearly in elementary school and at least once in middle school and once in high school (sometimes more often) to see if their handicapping condition has changed. The fact that Jessie remained in the dedicated SE classes for his entire educational career is further indication that his full scale IQ score remained in the 71 - 74 range. This is something that I know from being a teacher and having to sit in on the evaluations and give input on occasion.

 

[missy_g]

Unfortunately, I believe that human beings can and do many things while in varying degrees of inebriation. I also believe that those individuals can have impaired memory of what they did during those times.

I have often read the statement that Misskelley was tested in school and he tested as borderline retarded. But I have never seen the documentation of that online. Was this in his original trial and is it online? Because if it is, then I'll surely agree that Misskelley is mentally challanged.

How did they manage to get the crime scene so clean ?

 

[Dysthymia]

There was blood evidence at the murder site. Luminol testing showed lots of it but, back when the murders were committed (1993), Arkansas did not legally recognize luminol testing. The results never made it to the trials. There was visual evidence by the police on the scene that described the bank of the water ditch (where the little boys were discovered) as being "slicked off" which, if true, would have destroyed footprints/handprints/blood.

There was, in addition, the fact that the little boys were stripped naked, bound, and submerged into the drainage ditch. Any evidence on their bodies was washed completely away.

None of those things; slopping water up over a bank and stripping victims naked took that much intelligence. But considering that there was blood evidence at the site shows that they didn't get that crime scene so clean, after all.

 

[Dysthymia]

The problem with taking an author's word for it that teachers told her Misskelley was "borderline retarded" (as they said back then) is that she was writing a book about the murders with the conviction that the 3 were innocent.

Misskelley was facing the death penalty. I don't understand why his former teachers wouldn't have been able to give testimony to his limited intelligence in order to explain why he would confess that he took part in the murders of 3 eight year old boys. If they had been served with a subpoena, wouldn't that have legally compelled them to testify in his behalf? So I have to wonder why the teachers would speak to Ms. Leveritt but didn't testify for Misskelley's defense.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There was blood evidence at the murder site. Luminol testing showed lots of it but, back when the murders were committed (1993), Arkansas did not legally recognize luminol testing. The results never made it to the trials. There was visual evidence by the police on the scene that described the bank of the water ditch (where the little boys were discovered) as being "slicked off" which, if true, would have destroyed footprints/handprints/blood.

However, two footprints (which were not from any of the defendants but which are consistent with the size shoe worn by Terry Hobbs) and some other partial prints (IIRC, which were too limited for identification - except for ruling out the defendants) survived. According the Jessie's third statement (the infamous "Bible" statement), Damien and Jason wiped the blood off of the grass a blade at a time - with their fingers! Now, that's believable!

There was, in addition, the fact that the little boys were stripped naked, bound, and submerged into the drainage ditch. Any evidence on their bodies was washed completely away.

However, Chris' shoes did reveal DNA evidence. IIRC, although the WMFree have been excluded as donors, the donors for these samples have not been publicly identified - yet. There was one allele found on Stevie's (?) penis that could not be identified back in 1993. I don't think its donor has been revealed either - again except ruling out any of the WMFree. So, certain "evidence" did survive submersion. Interestingly enough, none of that evidence came from any of the WMFree.

None of those things; slopping water up over a bank and stripping victims naked took that much intelligence. But considering that there was blood evidence at the site shows that they didn't get that crime scene so clean, after all.

Most of the "blood evidence" as you call it was in places where the inept WMPD officers laid the bodies on the bank - except for a couple of spots away from the scene (which would tend to disprove Jessie's assertion that all of the action took place by the bayou and would lend credence to the theory that the murders took place elsewhere and the bodies were moved). Also, at the time Luminol testing, in order to definitively prove blood as opposed to several other substances that would give the same reaction, required a follow up testing with another agent - which the inept WMPD did not do. Amazing, isn't it, how all "evidence" points away from the WMFree?

 

[Cappuccino]

There was blood evidence at the murder site.

No there wasn't.

Luminol testing showed lots of it but, back when the murders were committed (1993), Arkansas did not legally recognize luminol testing. The results never made it to the trials.

Luminol testing is not able, on its own, to show the presence of blood. If you look at the list of things, apart from blood, which luminol reacts with, common sense should tell you that if you spray luminol around in any patch of woods you will get positive reactions, it doesn't mean there was ever blood there.

And its got nothing to do with Arkansas laws in 1993 either. It doesn't make any difference what Arkansas legally recognises, chemistry does not recognise luminol as a blood specific chemical.

There was visual evidence by the police on the scene that described the bank of the water ditch (where the little boys were discovered) as being "slicked off" which, if true, would have destroyed footprints/handprints/blood.

Slicking off the bank would have done nothing to disguise the presence of blood if it had been tested with a blood specific chemical. It didn't even succesfully get rid of all footprints, etc. There were prints found, but they didn't match Jason, Damien or Jessie.

There was, in addition, the fact that the little boys were stripped naked, bound, and submerged into the drainage ditch. Any evidence on their bodies was washed completely away.

Except it wasn't. There was plenty of DNA found at that crime scene, just none of it belonged to Jason, Damien or Jessie.

None of those things; slopping water up over a bank and stripping victims naked took that much intelligence. But considering that there was blood evidence at the site shows that they didn't get that crime scene so clean, after all.

The notion of blood evidence is a flight from fact on your part, (or more accurately on Blink's part, your mistake is to have believed her). I agree the crime scene wasn't all that clean though, plenty of evidence there, just none of it pointing in the direction you want it to.