My view has done a complete 180

[claudicici]

How in the world would you ever get the idea that it was Jason's idea to kill someone?
and what makes you think Jason is capable?

 

[justthinkin]

:woohoo:

Three semi-drunk teenagers certainly wouldn't be able to do what was done to the boys that night.

I don't know why not. Our roads are full of semi-drunk people driving on them at certain times, and many of them don't get caught.

Who is to say exactly how many beers Jason and Damien had?

 

[claudicici]

IMO, all people and all killers have routines. It changes when someone decides to kill. Then their pattern is altered. What made Jessie Misskelley's sister kill her baby? Why would that day, for her, have been any different?

Damien and Jason were cowards, IMO, and needed a third person because they could not be sure the two of them could control 3 eight year olds. Jason had hung out with Jessie in the past when they lived in the same trailer park. I'm guessing that Jason thought Jessie was the only one dumb enough to go along with helping them. To this day, I don't know how much Jessie knew beforehand about what was slated to happen. I feel sure, Damien knew exactly what the habits of the 3 eight year olds was, since he said he was in the Robin Hood Hills neighborhood 2-3 times a week. If Jason's brother is correct, and D & J were together almost every day, then Damien was probably in that neighborhood even more often than that.

I think killing someone was initially Jason's idea, and it was Jason who wanted to kill a bum, but the two of them decided a bum might fight back, and win or even kill them instead, so they went after mere children. I also think once Jason brought up the idea of killing someone, Echols and Baldwin orchestrated it from there. I believe Jason orchestrated cleaning up the crime scene because Echols had too many screws loose to do so. Damien and Jessie would have followed Jason's orders, and Jason would have checked to make sure nothing was left behind, except for one thing, the bag that was found at the crime scene, that the WMPD never were able to connect to any of the three. I think Blink made that connection, although too many years too late to make a difference. I forget whether it was Damien's father or step-father who worked for Petro, but I think Damien's intent with the Petro bag was to lead the police to his father or step-father as a frame-up, and they missed the connection altogether.

It now occurs to me that the bag may well have been what caused the defense to seek the Alford Plea.

I don't find any of that credible at all.The 3 little boys did not hang out in the woods together.They usually did not all three play together.
Damien and Jason could not have known beforehand the boys would be in the woods.How come NOBODY saw Jason,Damien and Jessie together?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't know why not. Our roads are full of semi-drunk people driving on them at certain times, and many of them don't get caught.

Who is to say exactly how many beers Jason and Damien had?

As a general rule, drunks on the road kill with their automobiles, not with fists and big ol' sticks. Drunks do get into fights at bars sometimes, but I don't remember a case of drunks going out of their way and picking on some young boys.

 

[Cappuccino]

Justthinkin - its fine to have suspicions, theories, opinions, etc. But they need to be distinguished from facts. Do you have any evidence that Jessie's defense team, (or Damien's or Jason's for that matter), asked the prosecution to hand over Jessie's t shirt? That garment was in the custody of the state along with all other evidence, so if it was given to the defense to test for the evidentiary hearing there will be a record of that in the court documents.

If you can find that for us, then we can all agree that there may be reasonable suspicion that the t shirt was tested by the defense and that maybe that test didn't go their way. If you can't, then everything you've said on the subject is pure speculation.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't believe the state secretly tested anything. What I do believe is that the defense tested something, and it incriminated their clients. Rather than expose that evidence, the defense opted for the Alfred Plea, and the state was willing to go that route.

<respectfully snipped>

It's late, and I couldn't find the link because so much news has come out since then that it's buried, but IIRC, during the meetings with the attorneys before the briefs regarding the evidentiary hearings, Judge Laser scolded the State for conducting "secret" testing and said that all testing from this point on must be agreed on by all parties and totally above board. I'll try to find the link tomorrow.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I don't need anything, and you are wrong. I learned from the Casey Anthony case that until there is an actual written report, an attorney does not have to disclose information he becomes aware of. The state of Florida had the FBI lab withhold sending out a written report so they didn't have to share information with Jose Baez until such time as they were ready to release that information to him. Now obviously, it had to be released before the trial, and it was. Whether you realize it or not, it's part of the back and forth between opposing attorneys. Both sides do it.

An opposing attorney can scream all day long about the other side not releasing info via discovery, but his adversaries aren't obligated to disclose anything for which a report has yet to be written. Now a judge can order a side to release the info, but they can still stall so long as they don't have the report in their hands, and they can lay blame to the lab or something beyond their control, at least for awhile. Eventually the information gets shared before the trial, and both sides have everything. If a side fails to release something in discovery then whatever it was is stricken by the court from entering into evidence.

I think something similar happened in this case. The defense perhaps got a verbal that some testing did not go well for their side, and they possibly asked the lab not to send them the written report just yet.

Then they went to work on the Alford Plea, a whole separate deal from the evidentiary hearing. Once the state agreed, that immediately brought to an end any requirement the defense had to produce any written accounts of lab results for the evidentiary hearing or any requirement to expose what the lab may have found. This is how I understand it and to the best of my knowledge.

I think you are right about the defense wanting to do the Alford plea quickly. I also noticed that Echols quietly submitted a motion to dismiss that testing
here

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/de_motion_dismiss_habeas.pdf

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that is just a motion to dismiss the Federal Habeas Corpus pleading as the actions on August 19, 2011, made the habeas corpus motion moot. At least that's what the document says. If any testing was cancelled, I don't see it mentioned. It would be on the Federal level, however. Damien has always said, "Test everything!" I don't see any reason for him to change his mind.

 

[claudicici]

No the motion does not dismiss the testing.
This is what the motion reads :
"On August 19, 2011, the Craighead County Circuit Court vacated petitionerEchols&#8217;s 1994 convictions and sentence, finding that, based on DNA test resultsand other compelling new evidence, a new trial would result in acquittal. As aresult, the request for relief advanced in petitioner&#8217;s October 29, 2007 petition hasbeen rendered moot. Accordingly, petitioner respectfully requests that his October29, 2007 petition challenging his 1994 murder convictions and sentence bedismissed"
It's simply saying he doesn't need a judgement on the petition any longer.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

No the motion does not dismiss the testing.
This is what the motion reads :
"On August 19, 2011, the Craighead County Circuit Court vacated petitionerEchols’s 1994 convictions and sentence, finding that, based on DNA test resultsand other compelling new evidence, a new trial would result in acquittal. As aresult, the request for relief advanced in petitioner’s October 29, 2007 petition hasbeen rendered moot. Accordingly, petitioner respectfully requests that his October29, 2007 petition challenging his 1994 murder convictions and sentence bedismissed"
It's simply saying he doesn't need a judgement on the petition any longer.

Isn't that what all the testing is about?

To prove 'their innocent'?

Why file a motion to make it moot now?

Does this not sound a bit hinky to you?

Isn't this what they collected money from supporters for to do testing?


Here is the original amended motion from 2007
http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/2nd_Amended_Habeas_Petition_10-29-2007.pdf

 

[h818]

:woohoo:

No, Damien did not confess. Some tween girls claimed that they overheard him saying that he killed the boys. That is not a confession.

Yes, it is what I, and many other people, would consider a confession. Those girls heard him say that he did it. He first denied making the statements of guilt, then admitted he may have said it but made excuses. No matter how you spin it, saying that you killed children who were actually murdered, very brutally, is not normal.

Jessie's "Bible" statement was made to his own attorney because the attorney (Stidham) had been informed by the prosecution that Jessie wanted to make a statement.
No it was made because Jessie wanted to make it. Stidham didn't coerce him.

Stidham wanted to hear what Jessie would say before he said it in case Jessie was going to perjure himself in which case Stidham would be guilty of suborning perjury.

Stidham tried to talk him out of it.

After hearing the statement, Stidham was convinced that Jessie was in fact about to commit perjury which is why the statement was not made that day to LE. Jessie's statements, regardless of whether his hand was on the Bible or a phone book, are about as reliable as Aaron's as they were approximately the same mental age at the time.

They were not approximately the same mental age. That is ridiculous. You think most kids Aaron's age drink, date, have sex, etc like Jessie was doing?

Just like Vicki encouraged Aaron to tell tales (and possibly put ideas and/or words in his mouth), the prosecutors and/or the WMPD interrogators possibly put ideas and/or words in Jessie's highly suggestible mind.

I don't see anything to indicate that the WMPD put ideas into Jessie's mind.

Lisa Sakevicius, the State's witness, said that she couldn't state that any of the fibers recovered from the scene could be definitively linked to any of the items collected from the defendants' homes. All she would say is that the fibers from the scene were "microscopically similar" to some fibers collected from the defendants' homes.

And, as indicated by the testimony you posted, that is as definitively as they could possibly link such things in that day and age.
19 Q. Can you tell the jury what microscopically similar means?
20 A. That I cannot distinguish the two. They look the same to
21 me.
22 Q. Does that mean it is a definite match or just similar?
23 A. That means there are no distinguishable differences between
24 the two fibers.
25 Q. Are you able to exclude all other possibilities between the
1 two? In other words does it definitely come from that source
2 because it's similar?
3 A. It does not necessarily mean it comes from that source.
4 There could be a number of items containing that same fiber type
5 so we can never say it came from a particular source.
6 Q. So we are not talking about exactness then, are we.
7 A. It can be exactness in that the fibers are alike, but you
8 cannot say that it came from a particular source.
9 Q. You cannot exclude all other sources?
10 A. Correct.

Three semi-drunk teenagers certainly wouldn't be able to do what was done to the boys that night.

Another ridiculous assertion. Being drunk doesn't mean a person is incapable of brutal violence. Men get drunk and beat their wives all the time. Most women, though weaker than men, are stronger and better able to defend themselves than 8 year old children.

 

[claudicici]

We're not saying that being drunk makes you incapable of brutal violence.
IMO 3 drunk teenagers would be too impaired to commit the perfect crime without leaving any physical evidence behind.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes, it is what I, and many other people, would consider a confession. Those girls heard him say that he did it. He first denied making the statements of guilt, then admitted he may have said it but made excuses. No matter how you spin it, saying that you killed children who were actually murdered, very brutally, is not normal.

Damien often used sarcasm as a means of distancing himself from those who were bothering him. He discusses this in Almost Home. He still maintains that he doesn't remember saying the things that these modern-day Abigails assert. He only says that if he made the statement, it was said sarcastically.

No it was made because Jessie wanted to make it. Stidham didn't coerce him.

I didn't say that Stidham coerced him. I was making the point that the "Bible" statement was the result of Stidham's private interview with Jessie because the State had told Stidham that Jessie wanted to make a statement and Stidham wanted to be sure that Jessie wasn't going to perjure himself or cause him (Stidham) to suborn perjury. When Jessie was finished, Stidham convinced Jessie not to make the statement to LE that day. (IMO, LE continued to pressure Jessie until he made the 2/17/94 statement, over his attorneys' objections, after LE limited his contact with his attorneys because LE was afraid that the attorneys would convince Jessie against making the statement. Of course, LE won't admit to that, but IMO that's what happened.)

Stidham tried to talk him out of it.

Stidham did talk him out of making a statement to LE on 2/8/94. The "official" statement was taken on 2/17/94 and made barely more sense than his 6/3/93 statements. As I said, Stidham and Crow were not allowed very much time at all with Jessie on 2/17. I read somewhere that Stidham said they were only given five minutes privately with Jessie. When you read the interaction between Jessie and his attorneys before the 2/17/94 statement is made, IMO it is obvious that Jessie felt antagonistically toward his own attorneys. Again IMO, that indicates that the prosecutors and/or other LE personnel were trying to get Jessie to mistrust his attorneys and trust them explicitly. IMO, that's why Jessie made the 2/17/94 statement.


They were not approximately the same mental age. That is ridiculous. You think most kids Aaron's age drink, date, have sex, etc like Jessie was doing?

No, most boys who are eight years old chronologically don't do those things. However, we're talking mental age. We're talking about reasoning ability. That's where Jessie and Aaron (at the time) are similar. That's what it means to have an IQ of 72 and be borderline mentally retarded.

I don't see anything to indicate that the WMPD put ideas into Jessie's mind.

Of course you don't. The WMPD were not stupid enough to leave evidence of their unethical activities. After all, the department was under investigation by the FBI at the time, at least the drug task force was. They didn't want to give those investigators any further evidence of misdeeds, so they were very careful not to show their hand.

And, as indicated by the testimony you posted, that is as definitively as they could possibly link such things in that day and age.

My point is that it's not definitive. In this day and age, other tests are available that might resolve this matter. The State fought those tests for a long time. Judge Laser finally ordered those tests, and, IIRC, those tests are being/have been done. The results have not yet been released. It's one of those things that would have been presented in December at the evidentiary hearing, I believe.


Another ridiculous assertion. Being drunk doesn't mean a person is incapable of brutal violence. Men get drunk and beat their wives all the time. Most women, though weaker than men, are stronger and better able to defend themselves than 8 year old children.

As someone else pointed out, the fact in this case is that no evidence was left at the scene to support Jessie's ridiculous story. If what Jessie said had happened, there would have been evidence, especially if the teens had been drunk at the time. Drunks aren't neat very often. Those drunk men that beat their wives generally leave plenty of evidence, not just the evidence of the beating, but the beer cans/whiskey bottles left behind. (Oh, and BTW, they don't generally carry the whiskey bottles off and leave them under some overpass. They leave them at the scene because they are drunk and not thinking clearly.)

Also, if three drunk teens, unknown to them, had approached three eight year old boys, IMO at least one of the boys would have gone for help. If the WMFree had been as drunk as Jessie described, three eight year old boys would have easily been able to run from them. At least, the boys would have yelled out. If TH is to be believed, he was in and out of that three acre patch of woods fairly consistently from about 6:30 pm until about 3 am. By the time he left to get Pam, JMB and others were there searching for the boys. Bottom line, Jessie's stories aren't believable, and neither are TH's. The WMFree didn't leave any evidence because they weren't there. Follow the evidence. It tells you who was there that night.

 

[Dreamnine]

OK - I have WM3 burnout..

Before August I only knew a very little about this case. In the past 10 days or so I've seen both PL documentaries, read countless threads, watched so many video clips, pursued other links and read extensively about the crime and those who may be involved.

My head hurts. I don't know who did this, but am sure it wasn't the original 3 convicted.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory will premiere on HBO in January, 2012. Hopefully it will answer some of the questions that people have. As I understand it, it will not just start at the end of Paradise Lost 2: Revelations but will review this whole sordid case from the beginning of the nightmare for Damien, Jason and Jessie through their August 19, 2011, release. It will present some of the new information that has been brought to light since the original convictions and will suggest a possible murderer. I am looking forward to seeing it.

ETA: Here's an HBO trailer for the new documentary. CAUTION: Let it fully load before viewing or it will stop very frequently.

[video=dailymotion;xldw06]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xldw06_hbo-documentary-films-paradise-lost-3-purgatory-trailer_shortfilms[/video]