Questions and All Three HBO Specials Are On Demand Now!

[reedus23]

Words do matter -- so for you to say the confession was taken "illegally" is completely false, because it wasn't.

The fact you say "it only took me reading a very small portion of the confession (to come to a conclusion)" speaks volumes.

Yes, a small portion. You don't have to get through 20% of the questioning to see that the story he is telling doesn't match what actually happened and LE starts feeding the correct answers to him and very quickly learn to ask primarily questions wherein the answers are already given.

 

[reedus23]

And I can understand why certain people would want to laser-focus on that and not the fact that other suspects were investigated while DE was on the police's radar. JMB was thoroughly investigated. Simply because the police talked to DE (many of those instances you list were simply questioning him at home/street; not in an official capacity) a few times before they officially and thoroughly questioned/interviewed JMB is evident of nothing as far as police bias is concerned -- in all honesty, it only proves my point more. What I mean by that is, if DE (or any of the WM3) were investigated as thoroughly or more than JMB before 5/19, wouldn't that prove all the more that the WMPD were not biased? Why would they have bothered investigating JMB so thoroughly on 5/19?

What all of this shows, is this: the police weren't biased; they were investigating any and all leads, including the WM3, but not solely. That's really it in a nutshell.

I'd say he was a subject of the investigation in all of those, making them all pretty dang official. I don't think they were just talking about sports scores. We can agree to disagree about whether 4 pages of notes from one interview, answering prepared questionnaires and being given a polygraph are official or not.

As to JMB (and even others), I never claimed they never interviewed any one else ever. I would encourage everyone to read that interview though. The questions are primarily about what happened afterwards in the search and other people he thinks are suspicious. At the end, he is asked what his response would be if they told him that they had evidence he was involved. Which they quickly followed up with "We're just kidding man. We just wanted to see your response and we will ask the other 2 dads the same question." Ok, I paraphrased the quoted portion but that's pretty damn close and regardless there were next to no questions about where he was the entire day, who he was with, what he was doing and so forth. That's hardly an interview of a subject of an investigation.

 

[reedus23]

"The confession"? Which one? The ones before his conviction? The ones post conviction? The one his lawyer begged him over and over not to give? There are so many, you'll have to be specific and perhaps assign numbers to all the confessions to keep it straight for us.

And please explain how the police are able to continue "coercing" confessions from Misskelley when they aren't even present? And AFTER he was already convicted? Telepathy?

With all do respect, I don't think you understand what a "coerced" confession is. A better understanding of that will also help answer all of your questions.

 

[Userid]

Yes, a small portion. You don't have to get through 20% of the questioning to see that the story he is telling doesn't match what actually happened and LE starts feeding the correct answers to him and very quickly learn to ask primarily questions wherein the answers are already given.

The fact you only read part of it before reaching a conclusion shows your bias, plain and simple. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Truth of the matter is, he gets things wrong -- yes -- but he also gets a lot of things right. Specifically, the exact wounds to the exact victims; his route to and from the crime scene, the fact that the boy he said ran away (MM) and who he caught, was found separated from the other two victims, etc. (just going off the top of my head).

 

[Userid]

I'd say he was a subject of the investigation in all of those, making them all pretty dang official. I don't think they were just talking about sports scores. We can agree to disagree about whether 4 pages of notes from one interview, answering prepared questionnaires and being given a polygraph are official or not.

As to JMB (and even others), I never claimed they never interviewed any one else ever. I would encourage everyone to read that interview though. The questions are primarily about what happened afterwards in the search and other people he thinks are suspicious. At the end, he is asked what his response would be if they told him that they had evidence he was involved. Which they quickly followed up with "We're just kidding man. We just wanted to see your response and we will ask the other 2 dads the same question." Ok, I paraphrased the quoted portion but that's pretty damn close and regardless there were next to no questions about where he was the entire day, who he was with, what he was doing and so forth. That's hardly an interview of a subject of an investigation.

But you accused the WMPD of having an agenda and framing DE from the word "go." Again, if that was their goal, from the outset, they wouldn't have investigated anyone else, specifically JMB, who was investigated thoroughly.

They collected hair, pubic hair, blood, finger prints, etc. from JMB -- so please don't try to pretend like he wasn't thoroughly investigated, because he was.

 

[dogmatica]

With all do respect, I don't think you understand what a "coerced" confession is. A better understanding of that will also help answer all of your questions.

That deflection wasn't even worth typing.

Here you go:

persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

How does one accomplish that when they aren't present and have nothing to do with what's happening? Furthermore, Misskelley clearly WAS willing to confess (again) - as he did so against the adamant direction of his lawyer NOT TO.

I understand perfectly what a "coerced" confession is. You can't "coerce" someone to do or say something if you're not present and have nothing to do with the proceedings at hand. You can't "coerce" someone into doing something THEY insist on doing. So clearly it is you that needs to try your best to comprehend the definition of the word.

So which confession are you referring to again? And how does one "coerce" someone when they aren't present and have nothing to do with the proceedings at hand?

 

[BeavisMom62]

Not only a great post, but I believe the true nature of this case to this day! I also believe that because we may never know what happened, and because there is so much doubt and questionable evidence AND people in this case, that these three should not have been convicted. There are simply too many unknowns in this case for a conviction. Maybe they did it, but from my view it seems more likely that they did not do it. This belongs more on Unsolved Mysteries or a similar show than to have those kids in prison and one on Death Row until the Alford Plea was entered, when there is too much uncertainty if they did this or not.

Satch

YES!!!!! Like a thousand times. I personally believe they are innocent, but there certainly is doubt and facts unknown. And not only the "investigation", but the trial were.....I cant even THINK of the correct words. A circus? Certainly not what you would expect in a court of law. The prosecution "experts" and the judge's consistently NON-impartial rulings were just mind blowing. As you said, I too do not believe they are guilty but the way the investigation and trial were run, the truth will never be known. And the judge ruling for himself on the question of whether there should be a retrial or a mistrial!?! Really? How is that even fair?

 

[BeavisMom62]

Regarding JB not seeming like he could do this - I'll give you one glaring comparison. Jeffrey Dahmer. In every interview, he was meek, calm, soft spoken, and seemed very gentle and polite. Remind you of anyone? You absolutely CANNOT conclude that someone isn't capable of true evil simply by watching how they act.

That is a silly comparison. JD APPEARED to be meek and calm, but he did have a history beginning when he was what? 10 or 12? JB had absolutely NO history at all! Before, during or since!

If you're going to go by that line of thinking - then Echols is clearly an evil monster based on HIS behavior and words on camera.

Again, there is no history and no proof. WORDS on camera?!? He was a young, "different", outcast teenager, wanting attention in front of the camera. He admitted it himself that he did act like a jerk and a show off (not his exact words). He just wasn't thinking. I do believe this.

You cannot have it both ways. Just like Misskelley being so profoundly stupid and malleable that he was "coerced" into confessing over and over and over again, but this stupidity and malleability evaporates when it comes to someone ON HIS SIDE trying to convince him of something. That is simply not how things work.

(Bolded by me). I do not know what you mean by that particular statement. Someone on "his side"? But I do agree with you that his confessions are problematic. I do believe that he was coerced or at least prodded by the police during the investigation, you can even see that during the little bit that was filmed and recorded. But I admit I don't understand the confession in the police car (and I think there was another one, that I can't remember). Again, IIRC, these other "confessions" occurred AFTER the investigation at the police station, so he had all of that information that was fed to him still in his head.

 

[BeavisMom62]

It has been a while since I looked at Cally's or my notes, remind me, how soon after the murders did they officially interview Hobbs at the station? How long after the murders was JMB given a polygraph? How long after the murders before the first notes focusing in on Echols? I am completely going off the top of my head so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would suppose decades, years (if ever) and hours are the answers respectively.

Yep! That is what I remember as well and I agree with you.

 

[BeavisMom62]

As to JMB and DE, you're going to make me pull out my notes from reviewing Cally's. I put literally every interview and every report in chronological order and my recollection is that the first record referencing DE out of thin air was within hours/days. I don't remember JMB being truly questioned (not just talking to police, but truly interrogated) until much much later.

That is my recollection as well. Like you, I could be wrong, I'm dealing with my 56 year old memory here and I haven't been involved in this case in a few months, but that is what I also remember. Of course, JMB talked to the police, it was his son that was killed. But interrogated? I truly don't recall. DE, IIRC was looked at, targeted and certainly discussed by LE almost immediately.

 

[BeavisMom62]

I can certainly understand why some feel discussing that issue is belaboring the point and would rather move on. We will agree to disagree on who was investigated more thoroughly. JMB was interviewed on 5/19. Damien was interviewed on 5/8, twice on 5/9, asked to answer written questions on 5/10, underwent another interview with detectives on 5/10, was given a polygraph on 5/10, and then arrested what? Less than a month later?

There ya go!!!!

 

[BeavisMom62]

Words do matter -- so for you to say the confession was taken "illegally" is completely false, because it wasn't.

The fact you say "it only took me reading a very small portion of the confession (to come to a conclusion)" speaks volumes.

Oh, please! That doesn't mean she read a small portion, one time and came to a conclusion. Don't be silly. You know exactly what was meant by that statement. You are nitpicking to further your opinion.

 

[Userid]

Oh, please! That doesn't mean she read a small portion, one time and came to a conclusion. Don't be silly. You know exactly what was meant by that statement. You are nitpicking to further your opinion.

Easy Michelle Tanner -- that person said it him/herself. And it's ironic you say that I'm nitpicking, when that poster literally did the same exact thing to me a few posts up (with the "void" and "inadmissible" schtick). So if you going to be pretentious enough to call it, call it both ways next time.

 

[dogmatica]

(Bolded by me). I do not know what you mean by that particular statement. Someone on "his side"? But I do agree with you that his confessions are problematic. I do believe that he was coerced or at least prodded by the police during the investigation, you can even see that during the little bit that was filmed and recorded. But I admit I don't understand the confession in the police car (and I think there was another one, that I can't remember). Again, IIRC, these other "confessions" occurred AFTER the investigation at the police station, so he had all of that information that was fed to him still in his head.

That is incorrect. There were confessions pre-arrest, post-arrest and post-conviction. By "someone on is side", I am referring to HIS OWN lawyer, who was, on his side. His OWN LAWYER begged and pleaded with him to NOT confess yet again, post conviction. He refused, put his hand on a bible and confessed, yet again. Again, one cannot be "coerced" into doing something they themselves insist on doing. Nobody coerced him the first time, and nobody coerced him any of the many times after that.

The police cannot "coerce" someone into doing something if they aren't present and not even aware the confession is being made. That is the antithesis of "coercion".

I never said the confessions were problematic.