My Theory

[Cappuccino]

So you are positing that a person is either remorseful and tells the whole truth or is not and tells all lies?

Let me clarify the above point too, because this seems to be getting lost in the crowd - when a person deliberately lies to the police to "throw em off", that is not a sign of remorse.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

Let me clarify the above point too, because this seems to be getting lost in the crowd - when a person deliberately lies to the police to "throw em off", that is not a sign of remorse.

I'm not saying it is a sign of remorse. However, it doesn't prove he had no remorse. Apples and oranges.

There is no way you could know what he was thinking. I believe he wanted to tell enough to get the reward, but not enough to get blamed for the murders. It obviously backfired.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Emotions are complicated things. I think he was remorseful. He did not want to get in trouble. How do you know people that are remorseful do not lie about details. I have heard it is common that criminals will admit to a murder but lie about any sexual assault aspects. Why did he say he was reaffirming his confession because "he wanted something done about it"? He would never have done this thing on his own. The other two drug him into it. He was torn, I think, between guilt and not wanting to be in trouble and shame about it.

I realize we will never agree. I have studied this case intensely and I feel certain these three are indeed guilty.

I believe they are guilty and their pleas confirm that. Not only that but Echols attorney withdrew any further DNA testing. So, we should not hold our breath on anything coming out of that.

Besides, they were never convicted on DNA evidence.

If given a new trial I have no doubt that DNA evidence would come into play, but it would not be only the DNA the defense has so carefully selected, but what the prosecutor would bring forth, PLUS the fiber evidence.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I believe they are guilty and their pleas confirm that. Not only that but Echols attorney withdrew any further DNA testing. So, we should not hold our breath on anything coming out of that.

Their pleas confirm that they maintain their innocence, too. I won't go into why they accepted the Alford plea again, as it has been discussed ad nauseum. As to DNA, all DNA testing has been completed. Echols' attorney withdrew the Federal petition (habeas, IIRC), which withdrew the DNA testing requests, also. Don't forget that Damien has always said, "Test everything!" I believe that there will never be any evidence of their guilt found, because they are, in fact, innocent.

Besides, they were never convicted on DNA evidence.

However, there is an Arkansas statute that allows a convicted person to test DNA when additional information is found. At the ASSC Oral Arguments, the State argued that the statute only referred to evidence of guilt. However, the Justices ruled that "all" really did mean all, and the testing proceeded. Yes, they were not convicted on DNA evidence (it was in its infancy at the time, anyway), but they could have been exonerated with it. Since none of their DNA has been found, I'd say that DNA was, if not incontrovertible proof of their innocence, at least an indication of their innocence.

If given a new trial I have no doubt that DNA evidence would come into play, but it would not be only the DNA the defense has so carefully selected, but what the prosecutor would bring forth, PLUS the fiber evidence.

IIRC, the fiber evidence is still being tested, along with the animal hairs. I am confident that the final testing on the fibers will prove that the fibers did not come from the garments collected from the homes of the defendants. I don't know if the source of the fibers will ever be found, but I'm sure that the garments from the defendants' homes will be excluded, which will be further indication of their innocence. The only DNA that the prosecutor tested - secretly, I might add - could not possibly be incriminating or it would have been revealed at the Oral Arguments.

Don't fool yourself; the State has nothing additional. In the briefs filed prior to the evidentiary hearing (which never happened), all the State mentioned in the way of evidence was Jessie's statements; no additional DNA was mentioned. Therefore, none exists.

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm not saying it is a sign of remorse. However, it doesn't prove he had no remorse. Apples and oranges.

There is no way you could know what he was thinking. I believe he wanted to tell enough to get the reward, but not enough to get blamed for the murders. It obviously backfired.

Wait...so now he's not only deliberately lying to mislead the police in a murder investigation, but actually trying to make money out of it too?? I'm not going to claim the power to read people's minds, but I think its a pretty fair bet that if someone lies about a murder they took part in, and tries to get a 30,000 dollar reward for their lies, they're not feeling any remorse.

I do think you're right about one thing though - I think Jessie's confession was motivated, at least in part, by the reward money. I think he started out telling the police what he'd heard around town, and when he realised that wouldn't be good enough he pretended to have witnessed the murders. However, being below average intelligence he didn't really know where to draw the line and ended up painting himself as an accomplice rather than a witness. That to me is a credible explanation for Jessie's utterly ridiculous and inaccurate statement to the WMPD. They should have clipped him round the ear and sent him home with a stern warining about wasting police time.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

He admitted he lied about the details, on purpose. Is there any documentation that he ever recanted?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

In this interview, http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-jessie-misskelley-interview,0,4710966.story , he says that everything he said in his statements was what the police told him to say. Also, on the YUKU board, during a chat session, he said that he didn't do it. Then, we have the Alford plea in which he professes his innocence.

 

[Cappuccino]

He admitted he lied about the details, on purpose. Is there any documentation that he ever recanted?

The statement where he says he previously lied on purpose is also riddled with errors. How do you explain that, was he still trying to throw em off?

 

[Cappuccino]

There's another interesting thing about that statement. Jessie gives a very specific time frame for the murders in that statement, and its the same time which Terry Hobbs says he was in the woods searching for the boys. Now, this is a small patch of woods in which a prolonged and sadistic crime was supposedly being inflicted on three victims who weren't gagged, so - regardless of where anybody stands on the idea of Hobbs as the real killer - I think there's a question to be asked here. Why didn't Terry Hobbs hear anything?

 

[iluvmua]

Ok. He is dumb. I agree. However, he is not that dumb. Fact is, most of the hope to get Echols off of death row hinged on this claim that poor dumb Jessie was a dumb liar. The Alford plea has made the point moot. Echols acted like a fool all through his trial. Poor dumb Damien. I guess the only smart one was Baldwin. He kept his mouth shut.

He def. ran his mouth when he should not have. His behavior was cocky and uncalled for....... I'm surprised he did not announce when he was on the stand that he helped kill Stevie, Chris & Michael.

 

[tezi]

He def. ran his mouth when he should not have. His behavior was cocky and uncalled for....... I'm surprised he did not announce when he was on the stand that he helped kill Stevie, Chris & Michael.

He was 18, he didn't think he'd be convicted because he was innocent. I'm not Damien's biggest fan, but geez, he was 18, give him a break.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I don't know what he thought, but he showed no compassion. That is definitely abnormal.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't know what he thought, but he showed no compassion. That is definitely abnormal.

Not that it excuses his behavior, but how much compassion did the families show him? I realize that the families thought he was guilty, but he knew he was innocent. When you add in the fact that he was a teenager at the time, IMO it's understandable why he did what he did.

Try to remember back when you were a teenager. Try to conceive of a situation similar to Damien's. The whole town is against you, but you know that the town is wrong. You trust that the justice system will protect you. It's very typical of a teenager to "act out" that way.

I realize that, for those of you who believe the three to be guilty, you cannot fathom a reason (other than guilt and lack of compassion) for Damien's actions. Just step outside your belief in their guilt for a moment and consider the possibility that they are, in fact, innocent. Isn't that a logical explanation for a teenager to act as Damien did? Believe me, teenagers simply aren't very compassionate except with friends and family, and sometimes not even then.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I disagree. His reaction indicates to me that even if he didn't do it, he had a serious mental disorder. He never acted sad or even angry.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I disagree. His reaction indicates to me that even if he didn't do it, he had a serious mental disorder. He never acted sad or even angry.

Very few teenaged boys will show emotion in public. It's not considered "manly." As a teenaged boy, Damien was not one to be emotional in public. His public demeanor, as a teenager, was one of contempt for society - a society BTW that had made him feel like an outcast.

Damien's defense mechanism for dealing with that society was to act arrogant and obnoxious. I have seen this behavior often in teenagers in similar situations (feeling rejected by society). It is not necessarily "normal" for teenagers who are accepted by society, but it is very common among those who aren't.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

Damien definitely seemed full of contempt.

I am always hearing how he was a despised outcast. But never any specifics. Do you know who made him feel cast out? What was done to him that indicated he was an outcast?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Damien definitely seemed full of contempt.

I am always hearing how he was a despised outcast. But never any specifics. Do you know who made him feel cast out? What was done to him that indicated he was an outcast?

Damien felt that the whole town (with the exception of Jason) made him feel like an outcast. He discussed this in his book, Almost Home. Of course, his actions exacerbated the situation. So, we have a vicious circle! IMO, a lot of his problems with acceptance were caused by his intelligence juxtaposed with his poverty. It was very difficult for him to reconcile the two facts.

As to specifics, the original documentary, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders in Robinhood Hills, shows the town's reaction toward him during the trial. Although Jason and Jessie were also maligned, the biggest target seemed to always be on Damien. Also, if you read the trial transcripts and some of the police interviews on Callahan's, several witnesses and interviewees expressed a belief that Damien was "weird." IMO, this indicates that the town had a very negative attitude toward him. That attitude would lead to the "cold shoulder" toward him which would make him feel like an outcast.

 

[claudicici]

...the same attitude Nons have towards him to this day.Damien is weird,Damien is a psychopath so Damien killed 3 innocent little children ....

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I am weird myself. I wish I could side with him. There is just too much pointing to guilt IMO.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I am weird myself. I wish I could side with him. There is just too much pointing to guilt IMO.

Other than his "weird" behavior and tastes in music and literature (and Jessie's convoluted statement which simply doesn't stand up to close scrutiny), what, in your opinion, points to his guilt?