On False Confessions

[Ausgirl]

Learny goodness:

"False confessions often contain exquisite detail about the crime and about the victim, and about what the victim was wearing, and about their motivation for committing this crime," Kassin said. "They often contain details that are accurate and that only the perpetrator should have known."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/false-confessions-are-no-rarity/

http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2013/07/interrogations.aspx

In his book Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, looked at 250 cases in which innocent people were cleared by DNA evidence, including 40 in which there were false confessions. Garrett found that in many of the cases the defendants were young or mentally disabled. In none were the interrogations recorded, making it difficult to know what manipulative and coercive measures the police used.

Read more: Why Innocent Men Make False Confessions | TIME.com http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/#ixzz2mFGnSWj4

Fortunately portions of Jessie's WERE recorded, so we -could- see what techniques were employed.

https://youthradio.org/news/article/juveniles-lead-the-number-in-false-confessions/

Another interesting article:

http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/drizenl.leo.04.pdf

Here's a look at how a false confession can actually taint evidence in a case. Yet another reason to take precautionary measures to see they do not happen:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111116151333.htm

I could link until the cows come home, but really, Google search on 'multiple false confessions' and the like is only a click away for anyone who wants to educate themselves on this phenomenon.

 

[Ausgirl]

In 2004, Drizin and Leo described several key features of false confessions. By comparing and contrasting 125 cases of proven false confessions in the US from 1971 to 2002, they were able to find several statistics:

93% were made by males,
81% occurred in murder cases,
74% of the times the real perpetrator was found,
30% of the cases involved multiple false confessions from several innocent suspects,
63% were younger than 25, and four out of five of the false confessors who went to trial were convicted (for more information see Drizin & Leo, 2004).

http://www.eaplstudent.com/publications/fact-sheets/false-confessions

 

[kyleb]

IMO, as things happened, the questioning procedure was entirely tainted, and therefore useless as proof.

Well the law says otherwise, which is why Misskelley never won an appeal on such grounds, and best I've been able to tell his lawyers knew better than to try it after the arguments against the confession fell flat on their face at trial. And of course false confessions happen, even multiple false confessions on occasion, but they're far less common than true confessions, even from the menially retarded which Misskelley isn't.

 

[Miranda!]

In 2004, Drizin and Leo described several key features of false confessions. By comparing and contrasting 125 cases of proven false confessions in the US from 1971 to 2002, they were able to find several statistics....
http://www.eaplstudent.com/publications/fact-sheets/false-confessions

Thanks Ausgirl! It was Drizen I heard / read in a question answer session he took part in on line with supporters, on false confessions! Misskelly's confession is included in those statistics!

Kyle - you state that JM did not have any learning difficulties*, I would love to see the evidence that he attended main stream classes whilst at school rather than those designed for pupils with special educational needs.

*You actually describe him as 'not retarded'.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, I actually said he's not retarded, which is true of many people who have learning disabilities and have attended classes for such. And I mentioned as much because there's many lies going around suggesting Misskelley has the mind of a five year old and such, when his IQ test scores show otherwise and which is why he's never qualified for disability, unlike Echols who was on full disability for his own far more serious mental issues when they committed the murders.

 

[Ausgirl]

I don't think 'retarded' is the issue here.

I think 'retarded' is a word the defence would use, in understandable bias spin for their client.

But let's not over-estimate that score of 72.

I don't think anyone could feasibly argue that 72 is not a very low intelligence quotient. And low intelligence IS a factor in why some people confess to things they didn't do. Sometimes, they make multiple confessions. Especially when answers pointing to guilt are suggested to them by the police.

And they WERE suggested. Numerous times! It's right there, in black and white (at least, in the portion of the interview that was recorded). Blind Freddy could see it.

Which IMO renders Misskelley's confessions worse than useless.

 

[kyleb]

And they WERE suggested. Numerous times!

Some things were suggested, others weren't, and it's the ones which weren't suggested that corroborates Misskelley's initial confession regardless of how sloppy Gitchell and Ridge otherwise were in their lines of questioning.

 

[Ausgirl]

Just the fact that -some- were suggested is enough to make the confession worthless.

And if you look upthread to the links I posted, there's reference to a study in which it was found that a number of ---proven false-- confessions contained detailed and even 'held back' information. Either overheard town talk, or overheard police talk, or hints let slip in the questions themselves...

eta - And added to the -fact- that in the early confession, Misskelley actually got a number of important details very -wrong- (and as his confessions progressed and he presumably learned more about the actual details, this ratio improved in favour of guilt..) it's not unreasonable to think the confessions were indeed false.

 

[kyleb]

Just the fact that -some- were suggested is enough to make the confession worthless.

And by extension all the people people who've made confessions where some things can be heard suggested in recordings, and those whose confessions weren't recorded and hence if anything was suggested or otherwise can't rightly be determined: all their confessions should be considered worthless too? Surely not?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As was previously explained, Jessie's statement is being used by experts as an example of a false confession. What more proof is needed that it is, in fact, a false confession? Why the false confession occurred is one of the problems with this case. The false confession occurred because the interrogators were either too ignorant of the proper technique to use it or the interrogators knew very well what they were doing and, in fact, chose Jessie to be their "patsy" in order to be able to arrest Damien. It's one or the other.

 

[kyleb]

As was previously explained, Jessie's statement is being used by experts as an example of a false confession.

Sure, but I've yet to see any of these purported experts present a sound argument in that regard, just fallacious claims bare assertions, much has been done in the other examples of true confessions declared false by Ofshe and his colleague Leo which are addressed throughout The Guilty and the "Innocent": An Examination of Alleged Cases of Wrongful Conviction from False Confessions.

 

[Ausgirl]

And by extension all the people people who've made confessions where some things can be heard suggested in recordings, and those whose confessions weren't recorded and hence if anything was suggested or otherwise can't rightly be determined: all their confessions should be considered worthless too? Surely not?

I think it's perfectly obvious that this is not what I was saying.

 

[kyleb]

So why should just the fact that some things were suggested be enough to make the one confession worthless but not others?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Of course, every case must be looked at individually. However, in this case, Jessie's stories don't match the information collected, and the interrogations were blatantly coaching him, especially in the "corrected" 6/3/93 statement. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that his statement was a false confession.

 

[kyleb]

The details of Misskelley's confessions match available evidence far better than Echols' claims of having not lived in West Memphis at the time of the murders.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The details of Misskelley's confessions match available evidence far better than Echols' claims of having not lived in West Memphis at the time of the murders.

When did Echols claim to LE that he didn't live in West Memphis at the time of the murders? What relevance does what Echols said to a TV talk show host after the crimes have to do with the validity of a statement made by a suspect before the trials? Again, Damien's statements on that TV show are totally irrelevant to case discussion.

 

[kyleb]

What relevance does what Echols said to a TV talk show host after the crimes have to do with the validity of a statement made by a suspect before the trials?

It's relevant to the matter of the standards by which one distinguishes true statements from false ones, at least as long as one doesn't resort to double standards.

 

[LordYAM]

actually kyle, they do play audio recordings
http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieFirstStatement.htm

And there were flaws (Jesse's father did not give consent, it was illegal to investigate a minor (which Jesse technically was since he was under the age of 18) without consent, they use leading language, the fact that only PART of the confession was recorded). And the courts have often ignored evidence of misconduct in the past.

Having listened to the recording, there were elements of it that were messed up (definately at least one sign of editing, leading)

 

[UdbCrzy2]

They did have the consent of his father Jessie Missekelly Sr. this document will verify that and it's dated 6/3/1993
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/jm_polygraph_release.JPG

 

[Mrs G Norris]

actually kyle, they do play audio recordings
http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieFirstStatement.htm

And there were flaws (Jesse's father did not give consent, it was illegal to investigate a minor (which Jesse technically was since he was under the age of 18) without consent, they use leading language, the fact that only PART of the confession was recorded). And the courts have often ignored evidence of misconduct in the past.

Having listened to the recording, there were elements of it that were messed up (definately at least one sign of editing, leading)

How is it illegal to investigate a minor?