On False Confessions

[Ausgirl]

I was actually reading an article yesterday on a study made regarding co-erced confessions, and how they actually can -become- false memories of guilt that are then repeated and elaborated upon in subsequent interviews.

Can't find the link right now, but it was a good read. Will add it when I dig it up again.

 

[primitivefuture]

I was actually reading an article yesterday on a study made regarding co-erced confessions, and how they actually can -become- false memories of guilt that are then repeated and elaborated upon in subsequent interviews.

Can't find the link right now, but it was a good read. Will add it when I dig it up again.

If you could find the article, I'd love to read it. I was actually going to post earlier about my thoughts that this is a possibility, but decided not to as I didn't have any links to back up my assumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miranda!]

I either read or heard, somewhere, an interesting point being made. I agreed with it and it made total sense to me, so I am presentig it here as an opinion of mine, formed as a result of listening to someone regarded as a credible expert on the topic. It might well have been in the chat room of another wm3 specific board with a guest who knew what he was talking about.

Anyway, working on the premise that person being co-erced into making this false confession is doing his utmost to 'please' the people asking him with the belief that he can either go home, or see someone or feel better - whatever enticement the authorities use. As he sees how the 'right' answer makes them move on and less 'heavy' he feels a bit less stressed - or that he is giving the 'right' answer and so a bit 'happier'. This is re-inforced as the interview progresses - rather typical Pavlovian response!

Even if the final outcome is not what he wants, the 'confessor' feels an extreme need to do the 'right thing' again in an effort to reproduce the good feeling he had the first time. So subsequent 'confessions' can be seen by the prosecutor as affirmation they have the right guy, whilst the wrong guy is desperately trying to get it right enough to both feel 'better' and to go home. Having been 'nudged' in the intial session he has now 'learnt' the responses that they want and so he keeps repeating it. It could easily be argued that by this stage he is actually working from an acquired false memory.

The intensity of repeated confessions, even after conviction, exhibits similar behaviour to an addict who is always trying to capture that 'original' buzz of the first time.

What makes it all even harder to judge is that both prosecution and defence can use the same argument about the repetitions- obviously did it, he goes on confessing vs obviously did not because he goes on confesssing even after the court's findings. Luckily false confessions are now recognised for what they are. Misskelly's post conviction confession to police driving him to prison is a prime example - the atmosphere in the car must have been horrendous hence the need and grim determination to 'please' those in charge of him.

As stated at the offset, this is only my opinion as formed by many discussions and reading over the years. Hope I have not made things more complicated whilst trying to simplify! It is late here in UK!

 

[Ausgirl]

PF - I believe this is the one I meant ( there was another good one, I'll dig that up too when I get a moment to do so) -it's a really good article!

Internalized False Confessions

In the third type of false confession, innocent but malleable
suspects, told that there is incontrovertible evidence of
their involvement, come not only to capitulate in their
behavior but also to believe that they may have committed
the crime in question, sometimes confabulating false
memories in the process.

http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/kassin-fruit-false-confession.pdf

 

[Compassionate Reader]

And, when the person being interrogated is of limited mental capacity, the false memory is easier to implant, and the possible "guilt factor" from the false memory will be stronger than if the suspect ("confessor") is of average or above intelligence. So, Jessie's limited mental capability made it both easier for LE to obtain a false confession (which, IMO, was a false story fabricated to please the police) and more likely that he would repeat the story many times.

 

[reedus23]

And, when the person being interrogated is of limited mental capacity, the false memory is easier to implant, and the possible "guilt factor" from the false memory will be stronger than if the suspect ("confessor") is of average or above intelligence. So, Jessie's limited mental capability made it both easier for LE to obtain a false confession (which, IMO, was a false story fabricated to please the police) and more likely that he would repeat the story many times.

Agreed CR with one small addition IMO. I've seen it said several times that it was to please the police. I think the immediate reason was to say whatever would put an end to the questions and if pleasing LE would end it, then please LE it would be.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Agreed CR with one small addition IMO. I've seen it said several times that it was to please the police. I think the immediate reason was to say whatever would put an end to the questions and if pleasing LE would end it, then please LE it would be.

Well, what would make him continue confessing after he was convicted and sentenced and on the way to prison? He knew he wasn't going home at that point.

We already know that he wasn't borderline retarded or that he was like a 2nd grader or even a 5th grader like I've heard some say. So, that really wasn't an issue either.

I believe he confessed over and over because it made him feel better in doing so considering what he and his two friends had done.

 

[kyleb]

That also explains why he confessed to his own lawyer a week after he was arrested, and was still confessing to his lawyer two months later, a week after he plead innocent at the initial hearing but months before he went to trial.

 

[reedus23]

That also explains why he confessed to his own lawyer a week after he was arrested, and was still confessing to his lawyer two months later, a week after he plead innocent at the initial hearing but months before he went to trial.

And each as worthless as the first.

 

[kyleb]

Much vacant denial.

 

[Miranda!]

Initially, JM thought that his attornies were on that same 'team' as the police and prosecutors etc.. He did not 'get' the concept of men in authority being on his side! He wanted to 'please' them and treated them as though they were also part of the police team.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

JM had been in trouble with the law previously, as well as the other three.

I don't understand that concept of not knowing that his attorney was on his side. He made confessions after his conviction too.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I think the confessions post crime were also because he had been convicted himself, and wanted to make sure the guys he saw as more culpable than him were also punished for the murders. He was at the time of the bible confession asked to consider testifying against Jason and Damien.

Jessie said he'd think about it.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

He also said that the other two had tricked him into the murder.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

On the afternoon of Feb. 4th 1994, Deputy James Lindsey and myself were transporting Jessie Miskelley to the Arkansas Department of Corrections at Pine Bluff. Jessie was asked if there was anything he wanted to say and after being assured we could not use anything he said against him in court, he chose to talk.

<<snipped>>

Jessie claims that the third boy was never raped but that he may have been the one that Damion took his penis and put it in his mouth (the young boys penis). Jessie said at one point Damion and Jason had one of the boys in a headlock with one he believed had his penis in the boys mouth while the other one had him from behind. Jessie said he did not mention the "ears" to the police, only a headlock. Jessie also mentioned that "sticks" had been used to beat the boys.


<<snipped>>

Jessie said he lied about the time and the rope to "trick the police and to see if they were lying."

Jessie says he feels the other boys tricked him into what he did.

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

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If a word of Jessie's ramblings had been true, I would think that the police would have found Chris' penis in their shoulder-to-shoulder search of the area. If Jessie told this tale to the officers (which I don't accept as gospel), it is meaningless as it was not under oath, which makes it little better than hearsay. Finally, the statement that Jessie was asked if he had anything to say is, IMO, very strange. Since he had already been convicted, why would the officers think he had a statement to make?

IMO, what happened is that the transport officers were told by superiors to try to get Jessie to talk. IMO, their role in getting this "statement" was much more active than they have indicated. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to find out that they helped Jessie's memory a bit. Of course, the story Jessie told this time was as unbelievable as all of his other stories, especially in light of the information that has come to light since the trials.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

If a word of Jessie's ramblings had been true, I would think that the police would have found Chris' penis in their shoulder-to-shoulder search of the area. If Jessie told this tale to the officers (which I don't accept as gospel), it is meaningless as it was not under oath, which makes it little better than hearsay. Finally, the statement that Jessie was asked if he had anything to say is, IMO, very strange. Since he had already been convicted, why would the officers think he had a statement to make?

IMO, what happened is that the transport officers were told by superiors to try to get Jessie to talk. IMO, their role in getting this "statement" was much more active than they have indicated. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to find out that they helped Jessie's memory a bit. Of course, the story Jessie told this time was as unbelievable as all of his other stories, especially in light of the information that has come to light since the trials.

Maybe it was kept as a souvenir.


Jessie has made multiple statements. This one though is one that you cannot say was coerced or forced or whatever nonsense that is made of it.

There are some of us who don't dismiss all of this stuff. It seems to just keep building and I believe that's why some of us think they are guilty.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

What person, who claims police tricked him into confessing CONTINUES to confess POST TRIAL? If it was true that the first confession was a false confession, then why on earth would he make more confessions afterwards? The simple truth is he confessed because he was guilty. One, maybe .. many continued confessions over time, even post trial against the advice of his own lawyers - no way.

 

[Cappuccino]

What person, who claims police tricked him into confessing CONTINUES to confess POST TRIAL? If it was true that the first confession was a false confession, then why on earth would he make more confessions afterwards? The simple truth is he confessed because he was guilty. One, maybe .. many continued confessions over time, even post trial against the advice of his own lawyers - no way.

Christopher Ochoa and Charles Erikson to name but two. I'm sure I can find more examples if I look.

 

[Ausgirl]

I am FAR from "dismissing" Jessie's confessions, thank you very much.

I just see them for what they are, in context with the HIGHLY leading prompting he got from the police.

It shocks me, really shocks me, that people can read those documents and choose not to see how led he really was into the preferred 'narrative'.

I have pasted links to scholarly articles in which the phenomena of multiple false confession is addressed, along with the reasons it occurs - the subject being young and of low IQ being WAY up there on that list.

I posted them in the hope they might actually be read. If not understood as relevant to the Misskelley confessions.

The links are recent, I am sure if one was to click on them, fruitful reading experiences would follow.

IF Jessie IS guilty, we were robbed of the chance of getting a proper confession. IMO, as things happened, the questioning procedure was entirely tainted, and therefore useless as proof. Had the police conducting the interview done so with -correct- procedure, and Misskelley had then gone on to speak accurately of the crime (the boys were NOT anally raped, for one, they were NOT, the end) -- I would feel no compunction in joining the chorus of those who believe he is guilty.

But that did not happen. So here I am, bereft of confidence in the verdict of guilty.