On False Confessions

[tigermending]

I've read the above with much interest myself. I do believe that Jessie was not fit to stand trial, had no understanding of the system, and sadly, it failed him in that regard.
However I think the same reasons that made him unfit to stand trial, are the same reasons he could have been involved in the brutal murder of three little boys. And, as others have said, feel horribly remorseful about it afterwards, leading to his multiple confessions.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Jessie told his father that he did not commit the murders. He has said that he doesn't know what happened in the RHH woods because he wasn't there. I believe the reason for the tears that Lee Rush reported was reaction to the pictures of the bodies that the police showed to him to try to get him to confess.

He babysat kids in the neighborhood. In fact, he was babysitting Stephanie Dollar's kids between 2 pm and 5 pm on May 5th. I feel certain that the sight of those little boys' bodies (since he had not seen it before) upset him greatly. All Jessie wanted was the reward money so he could get his daddy a truck.

Unlike what the rumor mill reports, Jessie has not claimed involvement in these murders since February 17, 1994. That's not a guilty conscience. That's a confused, mentally-challenged young man who just wants to go home and get on with his life.

He didn't commit these murders, but I have a good idea who did. I only hope that, after December, the powers that be in Arkansas arrest and prosecute him. Free the Three + Arrest the One = Justice for Six

 

[iluvmua]

I've read the above with much interest myself. I do believe that Jessie was not fit to stand trial, had no understanding of the system, and sadly, it failed him in that regard.
However I think the same reasons that made him unfit to stand trial, are the same reasons he could have been involved in the brutal murder of three little boys. And, as others have said, feel horribly remorseful about it afterwards, leading to his multiple confessions.

I think that's why all the multiple confessions, Jessie felt remorse/ guilty over what happened in those woods.
IMO, he's the only one of the three with a brain.

Damien proudly bragged about the killings and he even said he had more victims picked out.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IF the "softball girls" statement actually transpired, it was sarcasm. As I said before, Jessie's continued statements (the last one being over 17 years ago) are not evidence of his guilt; they are evidence of his IQ and corrupt and unethical police tactics. Damien's and Jason's steadfast refusal to "confess" for over 17 years, and their refusal to "throw Jessie under the bus" by trying to place all of the blame on him should indicate their innocence, at least to someone of above average intelligence.

 

[Mary456]

I've read the above with much interest myself. I do believe that Jessie was not fit to stand trial, had no understanding of the system, and sadly, it failed him in that regard.
However I think the same reasons that made him unfit to stand trial, are the same reasons he could have been involved in the brutal murder of three little boys. And, as others have said, feel horribly remorseful about it afterwards, leading to his multiple confessions.

According to his stepmother, Jessie was waking up, crying and screaming in the middle of the night after the murders.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mary,

IIRC, those tears could have also had something to do with another issue going on in his personal life involving an old girl friend. They could also have been because he had heard about the murders, as had everyone in West Memphis, and he was upset. There are many reasons other than guilt for which he could have cried. And, if he was cold blooded enough to commit these murders (or participate in them in any way), I don't believe he would be crying into his pillow about it.



BTW, here's another article about false confessions, this one from The Commercial Appeal, the newspaper in Memphis, TN:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/may/22/plea-pressure-hours-of-threats-and-promises/

 

[Maznblu1]

IF the "softball girls" statement actually transpired, it was sarcasm. As I said before, Jessie's continued statements (the last one being over 17 years ago) are not evidence of his guilt; they are evidence of his IQ and corrupt and unethical police tactics. Damien's and Jason's steadfast refusal to "confess" for over 17 years, and their refusal to "throw Jessie under the bus" by trying to place all of the blame on him should indicate their innocence, at least to someone of above average intelligence.

Nice. So anyone that believes they are guilty can't possibly have above average intelligence? That's simply a ridiculous statement.

You see every piece of evidence in whichever way benefits the 3. You ignore Jessie's multiple confessions and blame them on "corrupt and unethical police tactics." You subscribe to the "Manhole Theory" that sounds like something a person wearing a tinfoil hat would spout. You say the softball game confession was sarcasm. I say it was a confession. Just like Jessie's confessions.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Nice. So anyone that believes they are guilty can't possibly have above average intelligence? That's simply a ridiculous statement.

You see every piece of evidence in whichever way benefits the 3. You ignore Jessie's multiple confessions and blame them on "corrupt and unethical police tactics." You subscribe to the "Manhole Theory" that sounds like something a person wearing a tinfoil hat would spout. You say the softball game confession was sarcasm. I say it was a confession. Just like Jessie's confessions.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. However, since not one shred of physical evidence has yet been produced to support your opinion, and at least two shreds of physical evidence (two hairs and two footprints) have been produced to support my opinion, I can't help but conclude that my opinion is superior. That's just the way I see things in this case.

This thread was started to discuss false confessions. IMO, Jessie's statements (all of them) were in fact false confessions. Over the years, as the article I provided a link to discusses, many innocent people have been unjustly convicted by false confessions. With the advent of DNA testing, thankfully many of these unjust convictions are now being overturned.

Jessie's statements were coerced false confessions. The first one was so fraught with errors that it had to be "corrected" before an arrest warrant would be issued by a judge. The statements made post-conviction, after listening to the State's case, still contained substantial errors, even based on the interpretation of the evidence at the time. They completely fall apart based on the evidence as now interpreted.

Damien's statement (if he made it) was either pure sarcasm or said for shock value. As a retired teacher, I can see that even if you can't. The police had Damien in their sights early on in this case. They interviewed him as early as May 7th. That is why I feel that corrupt and unethical practice by the police could have easily been involved.

Although denied on the stand (police can lie, too - corruption), I believe that they knew that Jessie was slow. In a town the size of West Memphis, everyone would know who the "Special Ed" kids that rode the "short bus" were. They originally called him in to question him about Damien Echols because they had information (from convicted felon and then WM juvenile officer Jerry Driver) that he was the guilty party. They wanted to make a case against him. Jessie was an easy target (unethical behavior) who they coerced into a false confession because they wanted to "get" Damien Echols (more corrupt and unethical practices and just not good police work to boot).


As to the Manhole Theory, I believe that it is a very plausible explanation of the crime. It might be slightly off in a few points (I don't think so, but it's possible), but it offers an acceptable explanation of why no blood was found at the discovery site. The State's lame explanations are, in a word, ludicrous.

Three trench-coat-wearing teens could not have walked around in a small town like West Memphis carrying a sheet of Visqueen without someone seeing them. That explanation for the lack of blood at the scene is totally ludicrous. If the teens stored the blood in jars for later use, why weren't these jars of blood found in any of their homes? That, too, is ludicrous.

So, the only thing that makes sense is that the discovery site is not the scene of the crime. The WM police didn't think that the discovery site was the scene of the crime (because of the lack of blood and other evidence) until Jessie told his story. Then, in order to arrest Damien, they had to go with what Jessie said. Again, IMO that constitutes unethical police practices.

Do you contend that corruption and unethical practices are not possible in a police department? If so, then I could site lots of evidence to prove otherwise; one recent case in CA comes readily to mind. If you believe that corruption and unethical behavior are possible in a police department, why do you think that the WMPD is immune to such? I just hope that the WMPD does the right thing after the new trials for the WM3 are ordered in December and drops all charges against the WM3 and charges, arrests and prosecutes the real killer of those three little boys.

 

[David366]

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

No, let's not agree.

Jessie was questioned from 10:00 to 11:00 am. Then he and a cop left to find Jessie Sr to sign a rights form, then Jessie Jr took a polygraph, then they sat around a bit. They began questioning Jessie again around 12:40 pm. Jessie immediately started telling pieces of the true story. Around 2:20 pm, Jessie admitted he was there when Jason & Damien killed the boys.

That's maybe 3 hours of interrogation, counting the polygraph. That's not a long time.

5.Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.

You are mistaken. There was blood found at the crime scene, revealed by Luminol, exactly where Jessie said it would be.

http://wm3truth.com/crime-scene-or-dump-site/

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Jessie was in custody from about 10:30 am until he was arrested. The arrest paperwork says he was arrested at 2:44 pm, but that is when the recording of his statement began. Judge Rainey wouldn't sign an arrest warrant based on the first statement Jessie made. He finished his second "corrected" statement sometime around 5 pm. The probable cause hearing which led to the signing of the arrest warrants by Judge Rainey began at about 9:15 pm. So, IMO, Jessie's record of arrest document was falsified. He was placed under arrest shortly after 9:15 pm on June 3, 1993. (Damien and Jason were arrested at about 10:30 pm according to their records of arrest.) That means that Jessie was in custody for about 11 hours before he was arrested. Although he was not being interrogated the entire time, I feel sure that he was feeling threatened.

The problem with the "truth" you are offering about the Luminol testing is that the presence of blood doesn't make the area around the drainage ditch the murder site. The amount of blood revealed by the Luminol testing (which is fallible and should have been followed up with other testing) is insufficient for the kind of confrontation Jessie described, especially the injuries to Chris' genital area. The blood that was revealed that was not linked to the discovery of the bodies could just as easily have been caused by the killer laying down the bodies prior to disposal in the drainage ditch.

The "truth" site states that, because of the searching in the woods, no one could have moved the bodies from the scene of the crime to the discovery ditch without fear of being seen. What this statement doesn't take into consideration is that the bodies could have been moved in the wee hours of the morning, not during the hours of the searching. One person admits to being in and out of the woods all night long. That person is Terry Hobbs.

If the bodies were secreted in a well-hidden location during the searching, then they could have been moved when the exhausted searchers went home for some sleep. Remember, the police didn't search all night, only friends and family searched from about 11 pm until 7 am, and only one person claims to be searching after about 2 am. I believe that the bodies were placed in the drainage ditch sometime between 3 am and 7 am on May 6, 1993, and I believe that the bodies were placed in the drainage ditch by the killer. That killer was not any of the WM3.

 

[Nova]

Although it is true that testifying or failing to testify cannot legally be taken into consideration, usually a guilty person tries to avoid testifying....

We know most attorneys advise their clients against taking the stand. I've heard defense attorneys say this many times. Lawyers like to be in control and a client on the stand is always an invitation for some unexpected disaster.

But I don't know how we can measure the guilt or innocence of those who take or reject this advice.

Innocent people may well be more likely to trust their attorney's expertise and take his or her advice.

On the other hand, sociopaths and psychopaths often have great confidence in their ability to lie convincingly, so guilty or innocent they may be more likely to ignore their attorney's advice and insist on taking the stand.

By the same token, sociopaths are said to feel less anxiety and may be more likely to take the stand for that reason as well.

Since almost all defendants who go to trial claim to be innocent, I don't see how we could construct a study to answer this issue.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Nova,

You're right. I failed to consider psychopaths and sociopaths in this statement. I think they would not only want to testify, they would offer to take a polygraph - and they would pass it! These types of criminals throw everything out of kilter. However, I still feel that a guilty person of normal intelligence, not a psychopath or a sociopath, would probably want to avoid testifying.

 

[Nova]

Nova,

You're right. I failed to consider psychopaths and sociopaths in this statement. I think they would not only want to testify, they would offer to take a polygraph - and they would pass it! These types of criminals throw everything out of kilter. However, I still feel that a guilty person of normal intelligence, not a psychopath or a sociopath, would probably want to avoid testifying.

That makes sense re non-sociopathic criminals.

My argument is based on the assumption that a significant number of guilty defendants will be sociopaths.

 

[Puffin]

This whole argument is kinda moot considering only 1 of the WM3 testified.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Jessie gave a statement; although he did not appear on the stand, his statement was part of the record. So, it could be said that he testified in a manner of speaking. Damien testified, and it was disastrous because of his teen aged demeanor. Jason wanted to testify, but his attorney advised against it after what happened to Damien.

My point here is that the fact that Jason did not testify was considered against him while the fact that Damien did testify was used against him because the idiots on the jury didn't consider teen angst as a possible reason for his behavior instead of guilt. Of course Jessie's wild stories are the reason all three were convicted. How any intelligent person can believe what Jessie said is still beyond me.

Nova's right in that most defense attorneys advise their clients against testifying, whether innocent or guilty. That's because of the way the prosecution can twist the words of a naive or young defendant. Then, the defense has a lot of trouble fixing the damage.

The jury is always advised that refusal to testify should not be taken as proof of anything - innocence or guilt. I just think that it's interesting that in this case, because IMO the three were already considered guilty by many people (probably by many members of the jury) before the trial began. It didn't seem to matter whether or not the defendant testified, the jury apparently ignored the admonition of the judge and held the fact that he didn't testify against Jason and used the twisted version of Damien's testimony against him. To me, it's just further evidence of how the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" was thrown out the window in this case.

My major problem with the trials is that the verdicts were not based on evidence of guilt. The verdicts were based on fear, "satanic panic" hysteria and a skewed version of events presented by the prosecution and embraced by the jury and town because it allowed them to get on with their lives. This led to a grave injustice which, hopefully, December will begin to rectify.

 

[Puffin]

Nova's right in that most defense attorneys advise their clients against testifying, whether innocent or guilty. That's because of the way the prosecution can twist the words of a naive or young defendant. Then, the defense has a lot of trouble fixing the damage.

They advise nearly all clients as such regardless of their supposed "naivety" or "immaturity." I seriously doubt Casey Anthony will testify and it won't be because she's naive & immature. The fact is, it's generally a bad move regardless of guilt or innocence.

The jury is always advised that refusal to testify should not be taken as proof of anything - innocence or guilt. I just think that it's interesting that in this case, because IMO the three were already considered guilty by many people (probably by many members of the jury) before the trial began.

You have zero proof of that. And personally, I find it very disrespectful to suggest a jury would not take their civic duty serious.

It didn't seem to matter whether or not the defendant testified, the jury apparently ignored the admonition of the judge and held the fact that he didn't testify against Jason and used the twisted version of Damien's testimony against him. To me, it's just further evidence of how the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" was thrown out the window in this case.

Care to prove it?

My major problem with the trials is that the verdicts were not based on evidence of guilt. The verdicts were based on fear, "satanic panic" hysteria and a skewed version of events presented by the prosecution and embraced by the jury and town because it allowed them to get on with their lives. This led to a grave injustice which, hopefully, December will begin to rectify.

You really don't give the jury any credit whatsoever. It doesn't matter how the media portrayed this case back then. That's not what matters in a court of law.

I realize you have your hopes up come December, but I'm pretty confident you and many other supporters are gonna be disappointed...again. Sorry.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"You have zero proof of that. And personally, I find it very disrespectful to suggest a jury would not take their civic duty serious."

I didn't say I had proof. I stated it as my opinion. As to jury members not taking their civic duty seriously, my point is that they were biased and would not say so. Read Warford's affidavit. You'll see what I mean.

"Care to prove it?"

Again, I stated it as opinion. Again, read Warford's affidavit and the jury notes, etc. on Callahan's. The jury was predisposed to conviction.

"You really don't give the jury any credit whatsoever. It doesn't matter how the media portrayed this case back then. That's not what matters in a court of law."

My point is that the media (the local media) had prejudiced the jury before the trial began. Add to that the local ministers preaching the evils of Satanism from hell to breakfast (pardon the pun) and you have a recipe for an injustice of monumental proportions. It shouldn't have mattered in a court of law, as you said, but in a small town like West Memphis, unfortunately it does.

"I realize you have your hopes up come December, but I'm pretty confident you and many other supporters are gonna be disappointed...again. Sorry."

You are entitled to your opinion. However, so am I. I believe that you are the one who will be disappointed in December.

 

[Puffin]

Warford's affidavit? Oh, you mean another one of those affidavits offered YEARS after the case? It amounts to hearsay. Nothing more. Good luck getting that jury to admit to misconduct.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Lloyd Warford was an attorney. In fact, he was Kent Arnold's attorney. He believed that what Arnold told him was covered by attorney-client privilege. That's why he originally presented a sealed affidavit.

There's a legal term for why it's not hearsay which escapes me right now. When someone tells you something self-incriminating, it can be presented as evidence as an exception to hearsay. That's how the silly tween girls were able to testify against Damien.

What Arnold told Warford was self-incriminating. Therefore, it's an exception to the hearsay rule. It was presented to the ASSC during the September oral arguments.

If jury misconduct isn't an issue, it won't be because Warford's affidavit is hearsay; it will be because the defense didn't exercise due diligence in presenting it. However, this is a catch-22 to me because the defense didn't know the extent of the jury misconduct until Warford's affidavit became public. This was well after the 30 days that the ASSC has arbitrarily put forth as the length of time after judgment that the defense has to present jury misconduct issues.

 

[ziggy]

Compassionate Reader: Since I just passed my Evidence Final I can tell you that the exception to the hearsay rule is a party admission - a party to the action admits something; it's one of approximately 28 exceptions to hearsay. It may also be declaration against interest if the person is not a party.

Puffin: I suggest you grab a law review journal and see the volumes of articles written and studies conducted that concur it is nearly impossible for juries to NOT notice and be biased when the defendant does not testify. Mendez has authored a few and if I can find them online I'll post a link.

Some defense counsel don't even want the judge to instruct the jury that they may not infer anything from the fact that the defendant does not testify because it just highlights it further!

Our system is imperfect but it is not supposed to be about perfection, it's supposed to be about resolving the conflict...did they do it or not?

I'm sure most jurors take their civic duty very seriously, however they are human beings. Some jurors lie and take matters into their own hands or simply disregard the judge's admonitions. It happens.

If any of these jurors concealed information or lied then injustice has occurred. I want the court to take it seriously because if they don't, then the next time it could be you or me or someone we love getting shafted. If you are so sure they are guilty and that there was enough evidence to convict in the first trial, then you should not fear either the testing of new evidence or the grant of a new trial. Hopefully you support the very important right of due process and the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.