On False Confessions

[Auburn]

Sry for this post.

 

[Mary456]

Sorry bout the 12 hours. Let's just agree it was a long time.

Let's not.

Jessie was questioned for only about 3 hours before he confessed.

 

[missy_g]

Let's not.

Jessie was questioned for only about 3 hours before he confessed.

I think that has been made clear.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Let's not.

Jessie was questioned for only about 3 hours before he confessed.

And only 40 minutes, less than half, of the statement was recorded. That is the point here.

 

[Mary456]

And only 40 minutes, less than half, of the statement was recorded. That is the point here.

What do you suppose happened during the questioning that wasn't recorded?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

What do you suppose happened during the questioning that wasn't recorded?

If you watched True Crime last night, Jessie, Sr. said Jessie, Jr. told him that the police told him what to say. Jessie, Jr. said that the police told him that if he would just tell them what they wanted to hear, then he could go home. So, I would assume that at least part of what happened when the tape wasn't going was the interrogators were telling him what to say.

You have to remember that first, he made a statement. Then, they took the statement to a judge, not Burnett. The judge said that he couldn't issue a warrant based on that statement, so, they went back and got a "corrected" statement. Then, of course, there was the polygraph. Finally, there was the arrest. So, although the questioning didn't last the entire time from Jessie entering the police station to his arrest, the police were questioning him most of the time. You say three hours. I believe it was more like eight hours. Some of the "questioning" won't show up on the police log, however, because IMO it was not really questioning but rehearsing with Jessie what he should say.

 

[Mary456]

If you watched True Crime last night, Jessie, Sr. said Jessie, Jr. told him that the police told him what to say.

Jessie Sr. also said that DWI class was dismissed at 7 PM on May 5th. He was lying. Not mistaken, not confused. Lying.

How anyone can read that man's testimony and accept it without question is simply mind boggling.

So, I would assume that at least part of what happened when the tape wasn't going was the interrogators were telling him what to say.

You assume.

Without one shred of testimony to support your assumption.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mary,

Do you really believe that the DWI instructor would admit to letting class out early? That would mean that, in all probability, the instructor falsified his/her time sheet for the class. To believe that the instructor would voluntarily admit to falsifying records is much more mind boggling to me than to believe Jessie, Sr.'s story. Falsifying a time sheet is serious business.

As to no testimony that Jessie, Jr. was being fed information, do you really think that the police would admit to that? Jessie, Jr. told Jessie, Sr. You choose not to believe either Jessie. I choose to believe both of them on this point. Just who do you suppose would have testified to the inappropriate police actions? Police protect their own.

 

[Mary456]

Mary,

Do you really believe that the DWI instructor would admit to letting class out early? That would mean that, in all probability, the instructor falsified his/her time sheet for the class.

Compassionate Reader,

Do you really believe that Gloria Wilson would lie under oath, knowing that the defense might call her (Gloria's) supervisor (or any of the other students) to the stand to refute her?

Her supervisor was there in the classroom with Gloria on May 5th, 1993.

Q. When was the first time you started doing those classes?

A. May 5th of '93.

Q. So that was the first night you'd ever done that?

A. Yes.

Q. When would those classes end?

A. Well, anywhere from 7:30 to 8:00. But on those particular ones, they ran closer to 8:00 because it was my first day and I was being evaluated.

Q. There was somebody there observing what you were doing?

A. (My) supervisor.

Q. So how late did this class that you conducted on May 5th, how late would it have gone to?

A. At least fifteen to eight.

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

Just who do you suppose would have testified to the inappropriate police actions?

Ummmm, let's see. Jessie?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mary,

I think that Ms. Wilson's supervisor (if this person was actually in the courtroom) would have no reason to remember precisely when a DWI class on May 5, 1993 (almost a year later, by the time of the trial) was over, and she would rely on the records Ms. Wilson presented. I think that other students in the class probably couldn't state with any certainty when the class was over (again, almost a year later). I think that whether Big Jessie got out at 7 pm or 7:30 pm is really immaterial as there are several other witnesses that place Jessie, Jr. at Highland Trailer Park until at least 7 pm on May 5th. However, I think that, if Big Jessie said that he got home at 7:15, he saw a clock that showed 7:15. I guess it's possible that the clock he saw was wrong and it was really 7:45, but, like I said, it's really immaterial. I don't think Jessie, Sr. knowingly lied about the time in an effort to provide Jessie, Jr. with an alibi.

As to Jessie testifying to the inappropriate actions of the police, he might not have even known what the police did was wrong. He just wanted the reward money so he could get his daddy a truck. He thought that he could tell the police what they wanted to hear and he could go home. That's what they told him. His mental disability made it very difficult for him to realize the consequences of his stories. His low IQ makes him very suggestible, and the police took advantage of this situation in a most unethical manner IMO.

If Jessie had testified as to the inappropriate police action, I have no doubt but that the prosecution could have made him change his story. Jessie ended up implicating himself along with Damien and Jason, something that even the police weren't expecting. His stories simply don't hold up to the forensics in this case. So, they should be thrown out.

 

[Mary456]

Mary,

Do you really believe that the DWI instructor would admit to letting class out early? That would mean that, in all probability, the instructor falsified his/her time sheet for the class. To believe that the instructor would voluntarily admit to falsifying records is much more mind boggling to me than to believe Jessie, Sr.'s story. Falsifying a time sheet is serious business.

Ever hear of perjury? :floorlaugh:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Ever hear of perjury? :floorlaugh:

Yep. And, IMO, there are quite a few people who have committed it connected to this case. However, if I made a list, I doubt that you'd agree. You see, I think it's entirely possible for policemen and others associated with LE to commit perjury. Especially in small towns like West Memphis, IMO, too often this is the case. It's how innocent people get convicted of crimes. And it's no laughing matter.

 

[missy_g]

Think about it his way.


People usually plead the 5th so they don't have to testify against themselves.

Damien decided to testify on his own behalf and IMO that says A LOT about him and this case. IMO if he was guilty he probably wouldn't have testified.

 

[Nova]

Think about it his way.


People usually plead the 5th so they don't have to testify against themselves.

Damien decided to testify on his own behalf and IMO that says A LOT about him and this case. IMO if he was guilty he probably wouldn't have testified.

I don't think we can conclude anything based on whether a defendant testifies (and jurors are specifically ordered not to do so). Damien testified. IIRC Jason did not. To my knowledge nobody thinks Jason killed the children without Damien.

Testifying or not is basically a matter of strategy. Some innocent people are off-putting on the stand (see Damien); some guilty people lie very well.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Although it is true that testifying or failing to testify cannot legally be taken into consideration, usually a guilty person tries to avoid testifying. Generally speaking, a jury looks at someone who fails to testify as someone who has something to hide. It's not right, but it happens.

Jason didn't testify at his attorneys' insistence. IIRC, he originally wanted to testify, but, especially after what happened to Damien on the stand, his attorneys convinced him not to testify. Personally, I think he would have done well on the stand. He did testify at the Rule 37 hearing. Damien's arrogance on the stand hurt him a lot. Although he is innocent, he should have conducted himself differently on the stand, and even he says so now.

It's true that some people are better liars than others. One very good example in this case of a good liar who is guilty is Terry Hobbs. He lied about not seeing the kids on May 5th. He lied about seeing a "wet black bum" on May 5th (and tried to involve Pam in his lie). He lied about when he searched with Jacoby. I could go on. I firmly believe that he could easily pass a polygraph about the murders with no problems. That is why polygraphs are not admissible evidence in a court of law and are only used by the police to (supposedly) assist them in getting the right perpetrator. However, in this case, because of Jessie's low IQ, the strategy didn't work because Jessie's polygraph produced several "false positive" responses which led to his false confession and the travesty of justice that now exists.

 

[twall]

Although it is true that testifying or failing to testify cannot legally be taken into consideration, usually a guilty person tries to avoid testifying. Generally speaking, a jury looks at someone who fails to testify as someone who has something to hide. It's not right, but it happens.

Jason didn't testify at his attorneys' insistence. IIRC, he originally wanted to testify, but, especially after what happened to Damien on the stand, his attorneys convinced him not to testify. Personally, I think he would have done well on the stand. He did testify at the Rule 37 hearing. Damien's arrogance on the stand hurt him a lot. Although he is innocent, he should have conducted himself differently on the stand, and even he says so now.

It's true that some people are better liars than others. One very good example in this case of a good liar who is guilty is Terry Hobbs. He lied about not seeing the kids on May 5th. He lied about seeing a "wet black bum" on May 5th (and tried to involve Pam in his lie). He lied about when he searched with Jacoby. I could go on. I firmly believe that he could easily pass a polygraph about the murders with no problems. That is why polygraphs are not admissible evidence in a court of law and are only used by the police to (supposedly) assist them in getting the right perpetrator. However, in this case, because of Jessie's low IQ, the strategy didn't work because Jessie's polygraph produced several "false positive" responses which led to his false confession and the travesty of justice that now exists.

BBM
Not true, polygraph results are admissable in some federal circuits and some states if the judge rules in favor of it. That rarely, if ever, happens so the misconception that polygraphs are not admissable grew legs at some point and became fact to some.

 

[tigermending]

I've listened to the confessions in an attempt to formulate my own opinion regarding Jessie's innocence.

When you go into researching something that you've already made an opinion about- ie; I think these boys might be innocent. Johnny Depp thinks these boys are innocent! Naturally when you listen to Jessie's conversations with police, you're going to be hounding for something-anything-that could be a clue to Jessie's innocence or coerced confession at the hand of LE.

What I don't understand is if someone was coerced, or even spoon fed a confession--why would they repeatedly try to confess again before-and after-their conviction? Supporters claim Jessie was 'easily led' and influenced... but why was he so immune to influence when his lawyers (and presumably his father) pleaded with him not to confess the 2nd time?

Just my opinions.

 

[iluvmua]

I've listened to the confessions in an attempt to formulate my own opinion regarding Jessie's innocence.

When you go into researching something that you've already made an opinion about- ie; I think these boys might be innocent. Johnny Depp thinks these boys are innocent! Naturally when you listen to Jessie's conversations with police, you're going to be hounding for something-anything-that could be a clue to Jessie's innocence or coerced confession at the hand of LE.

What I don't understand is if someone was coerced, or even spoon fed a confession--why would they repeatedly try to confess again before-and after-their conviction? Supporters claim Jessie was 'easily led' and influenced... but why was he so immune to influence when his lawyers (and presumably his father) pleaded with him not to confess the 2nd time?

Just my opinions.

Because Jessie knows he is guilty. I hope after the hearings Damien will be marching to Death Row and this 18 year saga will be over and done with for good.

All three of them are guilty and they damn well know it too.

If Jessie is truly innocent there would be no need for him to continue to confess.

I've never heard of him claiming his innocence. He even admitted that he lied to throw the police off.

If I knew I was innocent of a crime I know I did not commit there is NO way in Hell would I confess, much less continue to confess over and over again.

simple reason being Jessie knows what truly went down in those woods because he was there along with Echols & Baldwin.

 

[tigermending]

Because Jessie knows he is guilty. I hope after the hearings Damien will be marching to Death Row and this 18 year saga will be over and done with for good.

All three of them are guilty and they damn well know it too.

If Jessie is truly innocent there would be no need for him to continue to confess.

I've never heard of him claiming his innocence. He even admitted that he lied to throw the police off.

If I knew I was innocent of a crime I know I did not commit there is NO way in Hell would I confess, much less continue to confess over and over again.

simple reason being Jessie knows what truly went down in those woods because he was there along with Echols & Baldwin.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If you understood the workings of the mind of someone with an IQ of 72, as I do having worked with students like that for 25 years, then you would not question Jessie's actions. Please read Dr. Tim Derning's testimony at the Rule 37 hearing. It begins at the bottom of the page.

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/board/pdfs/Rule37/Derning.pdf

Although the abstract is available on Callahan's, I provided the above link because it links directly to Derning's testimony.