SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August

[flourish]

Respectfully, do you have a MSM source? Wiki is not considered to be a reputable source anywhere that I am aware of. Not saying it is not true, just that no where reputable uses Wikipedia as a source and it is even recommended against for school use by the creator of the site.

The wiki footnote that follows the quote that Disgusted refers to, footnote # 25, states the source as "WM3.org-Case synopsis by Dan Stidham," but when you click the footnote link, you get a "404 page not found."

So, it appears there IS NO SOURCE for the quote being provided.
HTH

 

[Silkprint]

I DO NOT understand how this isn't all over tv. Just put on news show and they are talking about Kim Karadashians wedding ?? who cares?!?
I have seen only a few little blurbs about them being released .

 

[deelytful1]

The wiki footnote that follows the quote that Disgusted refers to, footnote # 25, states the source as "WM3.org-Case synopsis by Dan Stidham," but when you click the footnote link, you get a "404 page not found."

So, it appears there IS NO SOURCE for the quote being provided.
HTH

See? Thanks for this! Anyone can update Wikipedia and if they have an agenda, they will definitely provide information that is biased or incorrect.

 

[Steely Dan]

West Memphis Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I take it you mean this from the Wikipedia page;

Shortly after Misskelley's original confession, police arrested Echols and his close friend Baldwin. Eight months after his original confession, on February 17, 1994, Misskelley made another statement to police with his lawyer Dan Stidham in the room continually advising Misskelley not to say anything. Misskelley ignored this advice continually and went on to detail how Damien and Jason abused and murdered the boys, while he watched until he decided to leave. Misskelley's attorney, Dan Stidham, who was later elected to a municipal judgeship, has written a detailed critique of what he asserts are major police errors and misconceptions during their investigation

There is nothing about what Misskelley said in that interview and the source link doesn't work. Misskelley's first confession was full of errors and the police only taped 46 minutes of it. Misskelley also refused to testify at the trials of the other two.

 

[deelytful1]

Was DE's mother at the hearing today? I remember her being a bit "eccentric" back in the day. Did they keep their close bond?

 

[guardangel]

Feb/2010

23 hours a day in lock down, isolation, the knowledge that your life could be taken at any time.

No matter what "side" you fall on can any of us really say they don't understand why this deal was excepted?
Damien wasn't just living in prison he was living in hell

He was livin in h3ll and it's over. An absolute dynomite fantabulous day. :woohoo::woohoo: I've always prayed and hoped this day would come.

These boys were hunted down by witch hunters. They hopefully can heal, get counseling and learn to enjoy freedom after being wrongly imprisioned for 19 years.
:guitar::skip::cheer:arty:

 

[Amster]

I wonder if any of the families of the victims, Chris, Michael or Steve, Jr. will sue these 3 in civil court?

I guess the one from death row has a wife or gf, but the other 2 might want to look up Casey Anthony. Lots in common, MOO.

 

[shellbee]

The wiki footnote that follows the quote that Disgusted refers to, footnote # 25, states the source as "WM3.org-Case synopsis by Dan Stidham," but when you click the footnote link, you get a "404 page not found."

So, it appears there IS NO SOURCE for the quote being provided.
HTH

Not taking sides just providing the requested source; Dan Stidham's case synopsis can be found here:

http://www.wm3.org/CaseIntroduction/Page/DAN-STIDHAMS-CASE-SYNOPSIS

 

[flourish]

Not taking sides just providing the requested source; Dan Stidham's case synopsis can be found here:

http://www.wm3.org/CaseIntroduction/Page/DAN-STIDHAMS-CASE-SYNOPSIS

Thanks
Eta: Interesting that the citation for the quote is a pro-innocence site...MOO

 

[annkitty0630]

All I can say after 15 years of following this case, HALLELUJA!!! I am not to fond of the circumstances in which this occurred, however, at least they are finally FREE!! In some instances I wish they would have held out for a New Trial, but, we are talking about the State of Arkansas which would never in any way shape or form ADMIT they tried, crucified and convicted the wrong people of the heinous crime of murdering little Christopher, Stevie & Michael... In their best interest they see this as the only way out of the HELL they have lived through for 18 years of their lives!! The Prosecutor gave a POOR presser and stumbled through his words and Damien, Jessie & Jason were so shaken up over what just occurred they could hardly speak... God Bless the WM3 and I am SOOOO pleased to sit here today and say that Justice was and was not served in the proper way, At least they are home with their Loved Ones!! Only SO the State of Arkansas could not be sued for Millions & Millions of Dollars!! Wonderful Justice System and Government we have on OUR sides!! :great: :great: :seeya:

 

[Amster]

You can put lipstick on a pig....

You can give a killer a plea deal....

 

[gitana1]

It's shocking how little you know about the case.

"Eight months after his original confession, on February 17, 1994, Misskelley made another statement to police with his lawyer Dan Stidham in the room continually advising Misskelley not to say anything. Misskelley ignored this advice continually and went on to detail how Damien and Jason abused and murdered the boys, while he watched until he decided to leave."

So much for a single confession and immediate recantation.

On June 3, police interrogated Jessie Misskelley Jr. Misskelley, whose IQ was reported to be 72 (making him borderline mentally retarded), was questioned alone; his parents were not present during the interrogation. Misskelley's father gave permission for Misskelley to go with police, but did not explicitly give permission for his minor son to be questioned or interrogated. Misskelley was questioned for roughly twelve hours; only two segments, totaling 46 minutes, were recorded. Misskelley quickly recanted his confession, citing intimidation, coercion, fatigue, and veiled threats from police. During Misskelley's trial, Dr. Richard Ofshe, an expert on false confessions and police coercion and Professor of Sociology at UC Berkeley, testified that the brief recording of Misskelley's interrogation was a "classic example" of police coercion. He has further described Misskelley's statement as "the stupidest ****ing confession I've ever seen." Critics have also stated that Misskelley's "confession" was in many respects inconsistent with the particulars of the crime scene and murder victims, including (for example) an "admission" that Misskelley "watched Damien rape one of the boys." Police had initially suspected that the boys were raped due to their dilated anuses, but forensic evidence later proved conclusively that the murdered boys had not been raped at all, and their dilated anuses were a normal post-mortem condition.

Subsequent to his conviction, a police officer also alleged that Misskelley had also confessed to her. However, once again, no reliable details of the crime were provided.

Misskelley was a minor when he was questioned, and though informed of his Miranda rights, he later claimed he did not fully understand them. The Arkansas Supreme Court determined that Misskelley's confession was voluntary and that he did, in fact, understand the Miranda warning and its consequences. Misskelley specifically said he was "scared of the police" during his first confession. Portions of Misskelley's statements to the police were leaked to the press and reported on the front page of the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper before any of the trials began.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three"]West Memphis Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Gnome_globe_current_event.svg" class="image"><img alt="Gnome globe current event.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Gnome_globe_current_event.svg/40px-Gnome_globe_current_event.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/df/Gnome_globe_current_event.svg/40px-Gnome_globe_current_event.svg.png[/ame]

I actually know quite a lot about the case. I have researched and reviewed everything there is to be found about it. But, it has been a while since I have looked at this case. However, Misskelley was the only one who "confessed".

Here's what experts had to say about Miskelley's statements:

Dan Stidham was able to secure the expert testimonies of Dr Richard Ofshe and Warren Homes. Dr Ofshe, a Pulitzer Prize winning social psychologist and an expert on false and coerced confessions, believed after reading the confession, listening to the tape and interviewing Jessie Misskelley, that Jessie&#8217;s confession was a coerced compliant and false confession. The reasons given for this conclusion were:

1. Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie&#8217;s identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
2. That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
3. That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
4. That many areas of Jessie&#8217;s confession were not supported by the facts.

Examples of incorrect information in Jason's "confession:"

1. Jessie stated that the victims and Jason Baldwin were not at school when in fact they were proven to have been in attendance
2. Jessie stated that the victims were bound with rope when in fact they were bound with their own shoelaces
3. Jessie stated that one boy was choked with a stick when the medical examiners report stated that there was no evidence of strangulation
4. Jessie stated that the boys were anally raped when in fact the medical examiner had found no evidence of this occurring
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.

Dr Ofshe was not permitted to state all of his opinion during the trial as Judge Burnett had previously ruled that Jessie&#8217;s confession had been voluntary and Ofshe&#8217;s testimony in this regard would directly contradict the court&#8217;s previous ruling. Burnett also stated that such a testimony would give an expert witness the power to determine whether the accused was guilty or innocent which was solely the jury&#8217;s domain. Finally, the jury only heard that Ofshe had a lot of experience with coerced confessions and it was possible for police to obtain a confession from someone who was in fact innocent, anything more specific was not allowed.


Warren Holmes, an expert in lie detection testing and interrogation who has studied and worked in this field for over thirty years, agreed to testify for the defense after he was approached by Daniel Stidham, despite the knowledge that he would not be paid for his services and only his expenses would be reimbursed.


At a hearing prior to the trial, Judge Burnett ruled that Warren Holmes could not testify regarding the polygraph examination itself. As polygraph test results are not admissible evidence he would only allow Holmes to testify to his experience and qualifications and to give an analyses of the interview techniques used during Jessie Misskelley&#8217;s interrogation.


When Holmes analysed the polygraph test conducted by the WMPD on Jessie Misskelley he found that Jessie&#8217;s responses to the questions relating to the murders indicated that Jessie was truthful in his answers and in fact did not have any knowledge of them. The WMPD interrogating officers&#8217; statement to Jessie that he had in fact lied, indicated that they had not conducted or interpreted the results of the tests properly. The result of being informed that he was lying would have greatly contributed to Jessie&#8217;s sense of helplessness in the situation making him more likely to comply with the demand for a confession by the police.
According to Holmes there are a number of indicators which will validate to the investigators that a suspect&#8217;s confession is true.

1. In a true confession the suspect will often give the police information about the crime that the police do not already know.
2. If a confession is true the suspect gives information that fits with the real evidence of the crime.
3. A true confession is usually given in a narrative form including many incidental details about the situation surrounding the crime which can be corroborated by police later
4. In a true confession, if the investigators make an incorrect supposition about the crime, the suspect will correct them.
5. In a true confession, there is no need to correct the suspect for contradictions in their story.
6. In a true confession there is no need for coaching or leading questions in order to elicit information.

Homes believed that there were many instances in Jessie&#8217;s confession where these criteria were not met. He was especially concerned that Jessie was wrong about the times and the type of ligatures used. Both of these factors should have meant a great deal to him. Nor does Jessie mention anything about his feelings at the time of the crimes or afterwards, or talk about the things that were said by himself, the other perpetrators or the victims. Jessie&#8217;s confession was elicited by a series of highly suggestive questions by the interrogating officers and was not given in a narrative form.


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/confess_6.html

 

[guardangel]

I DO NOT understand how this isn't all over tv. Just put on news show and they are talking about Kim Karadashians wedding ?? who cares?!?
I have seen only a few little blurbs about them being released .

It should be all over the news. This case illustrates a witch hunt at its best. I'm a bit snippy that this isn't being shouted from the rooftops.

 

[21merc7]

Do any of the news websites have today's hearing up yet? I watched the taped version on livecnn.com after they all came out to talk, and were a bit overwhelmed by the people and cameras. TIA!

 

[deelytful1]

HLN has the story coming up next....

 

[raeann]

:floorlaugh:
While just preparing my final report for my Fraud Accounting class (for my Masters) my professor strongly emphasized that Wikipedia is NOT a valid source for ANY citations or information and then went on to say he wouldn't suggest it, period.
Just lettin' u know it's not a credible source IMHO and it can not be trusted especially for info on such a heated subject such as the WMIII

At the private school my kids attend, any use of Wikipedia as a research source for ANY assignment results in an automatic grade of F for that assignment. This applies from elementary through high school grade levels!

jmo

 

[gxm]

Was DE's mother at the hearing today? I remember her being a bit "eccentric" back in the day. Did they keep their close bond?

Yes. I believe she was. I was working with the live feed on my computer so my attention was hit or miss but I think she was there and was even interviewed at some point. IIRC, she talked about being so excited that she'd be able to hug DE soon. (Or it may have been an old interview, as I said, my attention wasn't the best.)

 

[kalekona]

You can put lipstick on a pig....

You can give a killer a plea deal....

So if these convictions were so right why would the state even agree to the Alford Pleas?
They gain nothing but open themselves up for criticism that they let three murders walk free.

The very nature of the plea allows the defendant to proclaim innocence-they are guilty on paper only and free to bring evidence to completely overturn the original convictions.

 

[shellbee]

I wonder if any of the families of the victims, Chris, Michael or Steve, Jr. will sue these 3 in civil court?

I guess the one from death row has a wife or gf, but the other 2 might want to look up Casey Anthony. Lots in common, MOO.

I don't know enough about this case to make a determination of guilt or innocence so please understand I'm not asking this question to offend you or provoke a particular response. Having said that, Amster: How can you be so convinced "the one from death row" (Damien Echols) is guilty when you apparently don't even know his name?

 

[gitana1]

Again, I ask for a source, please...

And if you don't believe that false confessions happen all the time, I could compile a list, if you would like.

The wiki footnote that follows the quote that Disgusted refers to, footnote # 25, states the source as "WM3.org-Case synopsis by Dan Stidham," but when you click the footnote link, you get a "404 page not found."

So, it appears there IS NO SOURCE for the quote being provided.
HTH

Guys, Disgusted is correct. Misskelley did make a second statement to police, in the presence of his attorney. There are full transcripts available somewhere and I do recall reading them, I believe on the Free the WMII site.

However, he was the only one who did and his statments are contradictory to one another and the evidence.

We must remember that three guys were convicted of brutally murdering, raping, attacking, three little boys, yet the ONLY DNA evidence points to Stevie's stepfather and the step-father's friend.

Like my dad used to say about the OJ case: Okay, so let's say the DNA in the OJ case was planted. Out of ALL that blood, the ton of forensics, WHY was there no DNA from any other potential suspect? Surely the defense and prosecution scanned that blood like mad?

In this case, three boys were brutally attacked and murdered. Yet not one bit of DNA, not a hair, nothing was found that biologically links the three men to the murder, despite a vicious, sustained attack involving tons of hitting, etc. No broken nail, no bleeding cut from a tooth or button, etc. Nothing. :twocents: