Random things about this case...

[Mrs G Norris]

Pity the sheep who think the wolf is a friend #WM3

By Gary Meece

news@theeveningtimes.com

Pray for liberals, folks; pray for oblivious academics, the clueless new breed of journalists and all the true believers in innate human goodness.

Throw in a prayer for Francie Bolter, an associate professor in the writing department at the University of Central Arkansas who thought it would be a great investment of $10,300 in taxpayers’ dollars to pay a convicted child killer for a book chat.

Apparently Bolter and her colleagues should be thinking they got good value for your money, as Damien Echols and his wife won standing ovations coming and going, according to the account of last week’s event in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.


More at link: http://theeveningtimes.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/pity-the-sheep-who-think-the-wolf-is-a-friend-wm3/ at least some media see through this charade.

 

[AGettler]

My random thoughts:

1. Why was Frank Peretti on this case? He was not board certified and was an assistant! What manner of circumstances would be necessary to get the ME involved? I mean, really.

2. Why did the WMPD decline the offered help from the state police? I am under the impression the WMPD was corrupt and did not want anyone snooping around their department. That aside, it really sticks in my craw that some one in a position did not say to the WMPD: "You know what, your department does not have the experience or (fill in the blank) to investigate this case, so we are going to take over. This case is going to put the state of Arkansas in the news and we want to make sure everything is done professionally and expertly." If the kids could have been considered to have been kidnapped, I think that would have made it a federal case. In my opinion, if a crime is committed in a jurisdiction, the police department would have to meet certain criteria or else have to give jurisdiction to a higher authority. That the WMPD took the case is a complete disservice to the victims and community.

3. Why has the discovery site been denuded of trees? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1618163,-90.1717015,319m/data=!3m1!1e3

4. If the WMPD was not the subject of scrutiny by the state for what they did (not audio recording testimony, not having counsel present under interrogation, NOT INTERVIEWING terry hobbs as a potential suspect right away, etc.), then again, the victims and community were done a disservice. Instead, they gave each other commendations :sick: When airplanes crash, the NTSB steps in and does an exhaustive investigation into the cause to prevent the same thing from repeating itself. Well, obviously, the way this case was handled by the WMPD was, metaphorically, an airplane crash.

Shame on you WMPD, SHAME!!!!!

 

[Graznik]

Regarding your third point, I believe the owner of the land had it cleared to make way for some new development of some sorts.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Regarding your third point, I believe the owner of the land had it cleared to make way for some new development of some sorts.

That is the information I have, too. The real question is, "Who is the owner of the property?" If we could find that out, maybe we'd have at least a partial answer to the question.

 

[Userid]

^ Has any development even taken place (other than the removal of the truck wash and woods)? I know that the truck stop was converted into a hotel, but other than that, it is just barren land now, from what I've last seen (google maps).

On a somewhat unrelated note, it's amazing how much has changed in regards to this case. Catfish Island is gone (although, you can still see it on google maps with their time feature), Blue Beacon, the truck stop, the homes of CB and MM now abandoned.....it's all just so symbolic of what a truly awful case this was and how things would never be the same.

 

[Graznik]

Right, not a clue as to who owns it now but this thread mentions who did it back then:
http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...-victim-houses-visible-Google-Ea#.U84wwCgr0nU

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Right, not a clue as to who owns it now but this thread mentions who did it back then:
http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...-victim-houses-visible-Google-Ea#.U84wwCgr0nU

Thanks! A Google search gave me one "hit" that indicated the owner listed in your link could now be dead. Wish I knew an address for the woods and how to determine who owns a given address. That information should be public record. It's interesting that the owner wanted to clear the property immediately after the trials, that it was partially cleared in 2003 (the dead man I referenced died in Aug, 2003) and totally cleared in 2007. Again, I've seen nothing indicating that the possibly now-deceased owner ever followed through with the improvements he wanted to make. Just one more curious mystery in this case, I guess!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I keep reading about the wm3blackboard being closed because they were getting too hot. If anyone is interested, I found some archived pages with threads that were topical around the time of closure.

First of all the index page from 2009. Here, the first page of each thread has been archived:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090504071654/http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0


Here one of the last index pages, JUNE 2013, no threads are linked, but at least we can see wht topics were up:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130616155248/http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0

 

[missy_g]

What do you mean by too hot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Graznik]

Thanks! A Google search gave me one "hit" that indicated the owner listed in your link could now be dead. Wish I knew an address for the woods and how to determine who owns a given address. That information should be public record. It's interesting that the owner wanted to clear the property immediately after the trials, that it was partially cleared in 2003 (the dead man I referenced died in Aug, 2003) and totally cleared in 2007. Again, I've seen nothing indicating that the possibly now-deceased owner ever followed through with the improvements he wanted to make. Just one more curious mystery in this case, I guess!

Oh, well that makes it trickier. The information should fall under the FOIA, and would, like you said, be public record. It doesn't seem like something you can just look up online though.

And yes, with this case the fact that the owner wanted it cleared straight away and that it has been cleared since does make you raise an eyebrow. In any other case, it would make perfect sense to not want to be the owner of a piece of woods where an absolutely horrendous crime took place. For several different reasons. However, with this case... I'm not the one to be paranoid or believe in any kind of conspiracy theories, but there are just so many "coincidences". Like, didn't someone start walking about sprucing up the manholes in the area right when the Manhole Theory emerged and touched on the road rash type wounds possibly matching the outside surface of one of the manholes? Sure, even manholes on a field need maintanence, but why at that particular time?!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

What do you mean by too hot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the time, we believed that the "powers that be" were "uncomfortable" with some of the topics being discussed, mainly the bite mark evidence. Since that information is now out, so to speak, it might not have been that particular bit of discussion that upset "someone" but "someone" was upset and the board was unceremoniously closed and the domain sold.

 

[carillion]

It might be possible to obtain owner information from the tax assessor's office or the Arkansas Dept of Revenue. Google used to have a tool that could convert info from Google earth into a physical address ( at least I think it was Google) but I am not sure how accurate it was or even if it is still out there.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My research skills suck! I guess that's a result of my 65 years. Oh, well, I'll try!

 

[Simply Caustic]

I'm new to this case, and I've not formed an opinion on a likely suspect. But I do question how Jessie was able to correctly identify which child had cuts, which didn't (Michael Moore), and the horrific injuries to the penis, all correctly identified. My question is, how did he get that info? Via police, during an unrecorded portion of interrogation? Or via gossip in the town? Just wondering the thoughts you all have on this. JMO

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[Graznik]

I'm new to this case, and I've not formed an opinion on a likely suspect. But I do question how Jessie was able to correctly identify which child had cuts, which didn't (Michael Moore), and the horrific injuries to the penis, all correctly identified. My question is, how did he get that info? Via police, during an unrecorded portion of interrogation? Or via gossip in the town? Just wondering the thoughts you all have on this. JMO

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

Keeping in mind that it was quite a while since I read Jessie's "confessions", he did actually fail to identify the right victim at one point and a lot of the "information" that he gave was very vague and/or part of what had already been published in the press or gone around the local rumor mill.

What is more important is how many things he got wrong and how the police coerces him throughout his "confession". As an example, he initially states that the murders were committed in the morning and that the victims skipped school. Now all three victims attended school that day, as did Jason Baldwin. As the interrogation goes along he changes the whole timeline as the police officers encourages it by correcting him. Furthermore, he couldn't describe the crime scene or the area accurately. And time and time again the police more or less corrects him. Add to that, note how he states that he leaves the scene several times only to then continue with his story as encouraged by the police officers. Now that's only three things to keep in mind, and I could go on for much longer.

You can find a good analysis of his statement here:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/WM3/jesse-misskelley-confession/

 

[Userid]

I'm new to this case, and I've not formed an opinion on a likely suspect. But I do question how Jessie was able to correctly identify which child had cuts, which didn't (Michael Moore), and the horrific injuries to the penis, all correctly identified. My question is, how did he get that info? Via police, during an unrecorded portion of interrogation? Or via gossip in the town? Just wondering the thoughts you all have on this. JMO

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

Great questions. Before I go any further, I'd just like to add that I agree with the grand majority that these confessions are not credible and should have never been factored into the guilt of all 3 defendants. That said, I still have some conflicts in completely ruling them out entirely. I am very "agnostic" in many facets of this case. I lean toward an answer, but I don't 100% commit myself to said answer. My opinion on these confessions is no different.

The one thing that I have trouble with is the bible confession -- which Misskelley made after being convicted; i.e. separately from the original confession he made. Before he made the bible confession, he was also confessing to the cops in the squad car as he was being transferred from the court, after just being convicted. Once he arrived at the jail, his lawyer took out a bible and made Jessie place his hand on it the whole time, in order to ensure that he would tell truth this time. There were no police present (or at least, none directly interrogating him this time) during this confession; it is just his lawyer (Stidham, I believe, who has been his lawyer throughout). Arguably, he had nothing to gain or lose in making this bible confession, in that it, for all intents and purposes, follows the same script and implications as the original confession.

In the bible confession, he explained (paraphrasing here) that the reason there were so many inconsistencies in his original confession was because he was purposefully trying to throw the interrogating cops curve balls, in order to create confusion. This (according to him) is why he originally stated the murders took place at noon; why he said they were tied with rope, etc. You can read that any way you want, but one interpretation would be that only a guilty party would be compelled to create confusion, in this instance.

As I said, this is just food for thought. I'm not stating this proves guilt on anyone; I'm just providing you with the other side's point of view.

 

[Graznik]

Great questions. Before I go any further, I'd just like to add that I agree with the grand majority that these confessions are not credible and should have never been factored into the guilt of all 3 defendants. That said, I still have some conflicts in completely ruling them out entirely. I am very "agnostic" in many facets of this case. I lean toward an answer, but I don't 100% commit myself to said answer. My opinion on these confessions is no different.

The one thing that I have trouble with is the bible confession -- which Misskelley made after being convicted; i.e. separately from the original confession he made. Before he made the bible confession, he was also confessing to the cops in the squad car as he was being transferred from the court, after just being convicted. Once he arrived at the jail, his lawyer took out a bible and made Jessie place his hand on it the whole time, in order to ensure that he would tell truth this time. There were no police present (or at least, none directly interrogating him this time) during this confession; it is just his lawyer (Stidham, I believe, who has been his lawyer throughout). Arguably, he had nothing to gain or lose in making this bible confession, in that it, for all intents and purposes, follows the same script and implications as the original confession.

In the bible confession, he explained (paraphrasing here) that the reason there were so many inconsistencies in his original confession was because he was purposefully trying to throw the interrogating cops curve balls, in order to create confusion. This (according to him) is why he originally stated the murders took place at noon; why he said they were tied with rope, etc. You can read that any way you want, but one interpretation would be that only a guilty party would be compelled to create confusion, in this instance.

As I said, this is just food for thought. I'm not stating this proves guilt on anyone; I'm just providing you with the other side's point of view.

Well, that he had nothing to gain from that statement has been debated as he had been under the influence of the prosecutors.
I believe this document outlines some of the circumstances: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/2_22_94_hearing.pdf

 

[Userid]

Well, that he had nothing to gain from that statement has been debated as he had been under the influence of the prosecutors.
I believe this document outlines some of the circumstances: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/2_22_94_hearing.pdf

I'm confused. You're saying he was under the influence of prosecutors, even though he made the (2nd) bible confession with his own defense lawyer......Is that what you're saying?

 

[Graznik]

What I am saying, and I'm not sure I provided the right document to male it clear, is that Jessie had been in contact with the prosecutors who had removed him from prison and were attempting to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. Hence, we can't say that he had nothing to gain from the statement as we don't know what the prosecution may or may not have offered him or if they had influenced him im any way. Unless I got the wrong end of the stick, the second confession was made under these circumstances and not in a total vacuum where he just woke up one day and decided to confess to his lawyer.
Does that make any more sense (wether or not you agree or disagree)?

 

[Userid]

^ Yes, thank you -- but in all honesty, it still doesn't make complete sense to me. The statement (bible confession) would not have made a difference if he decided to testify against DE and JB anyway. The prosecution already had the original confession (which, as I said, pretty much exactly like the original confession), and Misskelley's testimony (had he given it) against the two on the stand would have been more than sufficient.