New to this case - what should I read/watch?

[Cappuccino]

OK, I'll concede that the evidence at trial was not overwhelming. Much of the best evidence against the WM3 was not presented at trial. Jesse's confession to Buddy Lucas. Damien's confession to William Jones. Jesse's multiple confessions in February 1994. The blood on the ground at the crime scene. The jury for Damien & Jason didn't get to hear any of Jessie's confessions.

Let me rephrase: The evidence that the WM3 were guilty is overwhelming, and the juries fortunately got it right based on the limited evidence presented at trial.

William Jones retracted his statement, ("I just up and said something I didn't know nothing about"). The alleged blood on the ground at the crime scene wasn't admitted because the prosecution failed to follow up the luminol tests with the more specific tests necessary to prove that it was blood.

And even though Jessie's confessions weren't admitted at trial, you can be sure the jury knew all about them. It would have been better if they had been admitted, that way they could have been analyzed by the jury and found to be inaccurate. As it was, the jury was given a case based on rumours and hearsay, and unfortunately they were stupid enough to be taken in by it.

 

[Cappuccino]

Also to anybody who is new to the case - I would recommend this site..

http://www.jivepuppi.com/

 

[KMouse]

Thank you for posting information about this case. I stumbled upon this today and think I might review it for a forensic science course I am taking.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

KMouse,

I have heard that this case is now studied in several law schools. As has been said, the evidentiary hearing in December should provide much more evidence to discuss. I believe that the WM3 are innocent, and I am confident that the evidence at December's hearing will support my belief. If you want to see further discussion of the case for innocence, please visit www.wm3blackboard.com .

 

[Pensfan]

Read Jessie Misskelley's confession to his attorney if you are new to this case:

http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-dan-stidham-february-8-1994/

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Please realize that the statement to his attorney was made after his conviction, so he had seen the State's case presented. Also, he had been harassed for days by the prosecutors, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason (which he didn't do). They had convinced him that, since his attorneys had gotten him sent to prison, they (the prosecutors) could get him out. For someone as suggestible as Jessie, that was unethical to say the least.

 

[Pensfan]

Please realize that the statement to his attorney was made after his conviction, so he had seen the State's case presented. Also, he had been harassed for days by the prosecutors, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason (which he didn't do). They had convinced him that, since his attorneys had gotten him sent to prison, they (the prosecutors) could get him out. For someone as suggestible as Jessie, that was unethical to say the least.

It is your opinion that Jessie Misskelley was "suggestible". Innocent people display anger at their unjust conviction and proclaim that they are innocent. Jessie did not do this.

This transcript shows evidence that Jessie was not severely mentally impaired. He was incredibly descriptive. He was asked open ended questions and he answered them. He did not have to confess his guilt to his attorney.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It is your opinion that Jessie Misskelley was "suggestible". Innocent people display anger at their unjust conviction and proclaim that they are innocent. Jessie did not do this.

This transcript shows evidence that Jessie was not severely mentally impaired. He was incredibly descriptive. He was asked open ended questions and he answered them. He did not have to confess his guilt to his attorney.

Jessie answered questions. He kept asking for clarification. He had been rehearsed by the State until he could parrot back a lot. And he still got a lot wrong. Look at when Stidham showed him a map of the area drawn by the police. Jessie keeps saying, "That ain't right." He'd obviously never seen the area before. He just wanted out of prison and would say anything to get out.

 

[Pensfan]

Jessie answered questions. He kept asking for clarification. He had been rehearsed by the State until he could parrot back a lot. And he still got a lot wrong. Look at when Stidham showed him a map of the area drawn by the police. Jessie keeps saying, "That ain't right." He'd obviously never seen the area before. He just wanted out of prison and would say anything to get out.

No, most people DON'T confess their guilt over and over again thinking that will get them out of prison.

Many people get lost in the forest every year because they don't recognize where they were previously in the forest. This is not unusual or evidence of his innocence.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No, most people DON'T confess their guilt over and over again thinking that will get them out of prison.

Many people get lost in the forest every year because they don't recognize where they were previously in the forest. This is not unusual or evidence of his innocence.

Jessie kept making statements because he thought that if he kept on telling authorities what they wanted to hear, it would get him out of prison. He simply wasn't telling them the truth. I've seen this behavior many times in students (who were about Jessie's age - high school age) who say whatever they think I want to hear.

I learned early on in my teaching career that students in this IQ range (borderline mentally retarded) simply cannot be believed. Their stories need corroboration. Jessie's story (and that's what it is) has no corroboration. Therefore, I simply can't believe it. He made it up. In the case of the post-conviction statements, he made them fit the facts, with the help of prosecutors (and in the 2/8 statement, Stidham).

The proof of my belief is the total lack of independent truth in his 6/3 statements. The only things that were accurate in those statements were things that were public knowledge. They should have been thrown out, and, if Jessie had had adequate defense at the time, IMO they would have been.

 

[indicat]

No, most people DON'T confess their guilt over and over again thinking that will get them out of prison.

Many people get lost in the forest every year because they don't recognize where they were previously in the forest. This is not unusual or evidence of his innocence.

I'm reading Misskelley's 3rd confession right now. This one is bothering me tremendously. The reasons for throwing out the first confession do not fit throwing out this one. There is no logical reason why he is (with counsel advising him not to and in fact completley frustrated that he is) confessing this.

ETA: and in fact it appears this is a tape of his own counsel asking the questions.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm reading Misskelley's 3rd confession right now. This one is bothering me tremendously. The reasons for throwing out the first confession do not fit throwing out this one. There is no logical reason why he is (with counsel advising him not to and in fact completley frustrated that he is) confessing this.

ETA: and in fact it appears this is a tape of his own counsel asking the questions.

When the State originally approached him about testifying against Damien and Jason, they offered him a deal of 50 years. Shortly after the 2/17 statement (the fourth statement, if you count the original statement and the "clarification" statement as two separate statements), Burnett disallowed the deal. Jessie no longer said anything. Both of the post conviction statements must be filtered through the fact that his trial had just been completed. The State's version of the events was fresh in his mind. He merely tried to parrot these theories back; he was more successful than he was on 6/3, but there were still errors here, too.

Also, the State had obviously instilled a very real sense of mistrust for his attorneys into Jessie. Read the conversation between Jessie and his attorneys right before the actual statement begins. (I'm talking about the 2/17 statement.) To me, it's obvious that Jessie no longer trusts his attorneys. He answers with basically snide comments and dismisses all of their help and advice. There's no logical explanation for this change of manner. When he made the 2/8 statement, he kept asking Stidham for guidance all through it. What happened in the nine intervening days?

I'm still at a loss as to why so much emphasis is being placed on these two post conviction statements. Obviously, he had the State's theory to help him. IMO, the prosecution, during their interviews (I believe they were probably more like interrogations) with him "helped" him get together a coherent story. (Because of his low IQ, Jessie has trouble telling an unprompted story. Usually he has to respond to questions.) The real story here is the many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his original statements.

ETA: Two other things to remember about the post conviction statements:

1) As another poster stated, in the 2/8 statement, Stidham is trying to be sure that Jessie is actually telling the truth. Otherwise he (Jessie) could be prosecuted for perjury and Stidham for suborning perjury.

2) When the 2/17 statement was made, the State did not allow Jessie's attorneys very much time to talk to Jessie alone. They were anxious to get the statement taken. IMO, the State was afraid that the attorneys would talk Jessie out of this statement as they did on 2/8.

One last thing, and I believe I've asked this before, did anyone ever question why the State wanted this "Second Confession" as it is called? IMO, it's because they knew that the original one was bogus and so riddled with errors that it would be thrown out on appeal. Then, although this one couldn't be used against Jessie (he was granted use immunity), they might try to use it as leverage to get him to testify against Damien or Jason if they were granted new trials. Personally, I don't think that would have worked, but the State might have believed it would.

 

[indicat]

When the State originally approached him about testifying against Damien and Jason, they offered him a deal of 50 years. Shortly after the 2/17 statement (the fourth statement, if you count the original statement and the "clarification" statement as two separate statements), Burnett disallowed the deal. Jessie no longer said anything. Both of the post conviction statements must be filtered through the fact that his trial had just been completed. The State's version of the events was fresh in his mind. He merely tried to parrot these theories back; he was more successful than he was on 6/3, but there were still errors here, too.

Also, the State had obviously instilled a very real sense of mistrust for his attorneys into Jessie. Read the conversation between Jessie and his attorneys right before the actual statement begins. (I'm talking about the 2/17 statement.) To me, it's obvious that Jessie no longer trusts his attorneys. He answers with basically snide comments and dismisses all of their help and advice. There's no logical explanation for this change of manner. When he made the 2/8 statement, he kept asking Stidham for guidance all through it. What happened in the nine intervening days?

I'm still at a loss as to why so much emphasis is being placed on these two post conviction statements. Obviously, he had the State's theory to help him. IMO, the prosecution, during their interviews (I believe they were probably more like interrogations) with him "helped" him get together a coherent story. (Because of his low IQ, Jessie has trouble telling an unprompted story. Usually he has to respond to questions.) The real story here is the many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his original statements.

I agree with the part about the first confession. I have no problem with LE tricking confessions or manipulating to get them but to feed someone information to be parrotted back taints the whole thing. I question just how mistrustfull Jessie was of his attorney's but he completley trusted the State with a deal? That just does not ring true to me. The after verdict confessions are much more troubleing to me because logically he is convicted, so the first confession didn't get him out of trouble like he thought, what reason does he have to trust the state but not his lawyers? Why are we so sure of this?

My sister has an IQ of 70 and bi-polar disorder so I do have some experience in dealing with someone who does not think the same way or reason the same way however it seems to me Jessie did not want to stop confessing. It will be interesting to me to see what he has to say in the future.

 

[indicat]

If they wanted him to testify against Damien and Jason is it really all that unusual that they would want to go over his confession and would continue to talk to him? If he did not want to and did not testify against them why did he keep confessing?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree with the part about the first confession. I have no problem with LE tricking confessions or manipulating to get them but to feed someone information to be parrotted back taints the whole thing. I question just how mistrustfull Jessie was of his attorney's but he completley trusted the State with a deal? That just does not ring true to me. The after verdict confessions are much more troubleing to me because logically he is convicted, so the first confession didn't get him out of trouble like he thought, what reason does he have to trust the state but not his lawyers? Why are we so sure of this?

My sister has an IQ of 70 and bi-polar disorder so I do have some experience in dealing with someone who does not think the same way or reason the same way however it seems to me Jessie did not want to stop confessing. It will be interesting to me to see what he has to say in the future.

I believe that he thought that by working with the State they could help him out of prison but his attorneys couldn't. He just figured that the first time he hitched his horse to the wrong wagon! And this is when he did stop confessing - for good!

BTW, hope you sister is doing OK. Is she on medication? I have a brother that's bipolar, but his IQ is above normal. It must be hard on her to have to deal with both disabilities.

 

[indicat]

I believe that he thought that by working with the State they could help him out of prison but his attorneys couldn't. He just figured that the first time he hitched his horse to the wrong wagon! And this is when he did stop confessing - for good!

BTW, hope you sister is doing OK. Is she on medication? I have a brother that's bipolar, but his IQ is above normal. It must be hard on her to have to deal with both disabilities.

Thank you for asking
She is on medication and we have the typical problems of trying to keep her on it. I know that she feels extreme guilt for things that the rest of us would just move on from and the fact that she can't process things well on top of her bi-polar issues makes things very challenging and she does need a lot of supervision.

I have not seen this addressed anywhere (might have missed it) but what do you make of the liquor bottle being where he said it would in this last confession?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Thank you for asking
She is on medication and we have the typical problems of trying to keep her on it. I know that she feels extreme guilt for things that the rest of us would just move on from and the fact that she can't process things well on top of her bi-polar issues makes things very challenging and she does need a lot of supervision.

I have not seen this addressed anywhere (might have missed it) but what do you make of the liquor bottle being where he said it would in this last confession?

The liquor bottle, to me, is a red herring. It was never linked to the crime by fingerprints or any other forensics. It was found some distance from the discovery ditch. IMO, it's simply not that important.

(Before someone else asks, I cannot link to something proving a negative, so don't ask. If you think it's important, please link me to the forensic evidence proving that it is in any way related to this crime.)

If you want my opinion as to how Jessie knew it was there, I imagine that there are liquor bottles under many an overpass. Maybe he saw it there. Remember that when this happened there would have been crime scene tape all over the place. IMO, Jessie, being a teenaged boy, went to investigate. IMO, he possibly stood at this overpass and watched the scene below. He could have possibly seen the liquor bottle at that time, but this entire paragraph is MOO.

 

[indicat]

The liquor bottle, to me, is a red herring. It was never linked to the crime by fingerprints or any other forensics. It was found some distance from the discovery ditch. IMO, it's simply not that important.

(Before someone else asks, I cannot link to something proving a negative, so don't ask. If you think it's important, please link me to the forensic evidence proving that it is in any way related to this crime.)

If you want my opinion as to how Jessie knew it was there, I imagine that there are liquor bottles under many an overpass. Maybe he saw it there. Remember that when this happened there would have been crime scene tape all over the place. IMO, Jessie, being a teenaged boy, went to investigate. IMO, he possibly stood at this overpass and watched the scene below. He could have possibly seen the liquor bottle at that time, but this entire paragraph is MOO.

Hahaha, I won't ask you to prove a negative, that line of thinking drives me crazy!
Thank you for answering my questions. There is so much to read I'm still wadeing through it all. I just read a post talking about Jessie being suggestable and while I don't know about Jessie per say but that fits my sister to a T.

 

[Cappuccino]

Sorry to be pedantic, but - it wasn't a bottle that was found, it was a broken part of a bottle, the shape of which was consistent with the shape of the same part of an Evan Williams bottle. It was found under an underpass 9 months after the crime.

Its hardly a smoking gun. Its a bit like Jessie saying he left the crime scene with a can of Coke, walked down the road and threw the coke can on the side of the road. Then somebody goes and looks at the side of that road nine months later and finds a can too faded to see what specific brand it belongs to - and therefore Jessie did it. Lol.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As we have quite a few new posters on this forum, I thought I'd give this thread a bump. It begins (please start on page one) with an answer to the query proposed. It does diverge at times, but all in all, it's a good thread for a newbie to read.

To respond to the last post, IMO the main reason that the Evan Williams bottle is moot is because it hasn't been forensically linked to the discovery ditch. If it were, then it might mean something. Just because Jessie says that, on his way home, he threw an Evan Williams liquor bottle under an overpass and, as Cappuccino said, nine months later they find an Evan Williams bottle under an overpass doesn't mean anything except someone threw an Evan Williams bottle under an overpass. Oh, and BTW, they only suspect that it's an Evan Williams bottle. There are a few other brands that are consistent with the small portion (from the neck) that was recovered.