SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August

[casseole]

I agree, justice was not served- for those 3 boys.

 

[shellbee]

Yes I have and I firmly believe they are guilty and So do a lot of other people.

Annkitty0630...... Go to The Hoax board and tell Todd Moore what you just told me .

What is The Hoax board? :dunno:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I'm reading the transcript of Jessie's confession again in case I missed something the first time around. Nope. It's still very clear and detailed. Mind boggling.

The problem with deciding something based only on a confession is that sometimes (more often than you would think) those confessions are false. Either because the person has a problem with confabulation and blackouts or because they are so tired of being interrogated that they will say anything or because they have mental issues that causes them to do things that others wouldn't. Earl Washington had an IQ of 70 and was told that if he told them what they wanted to hear he could go home, so he confessed to 9 rapes and a murder, all of which he didn't commit.

While reading the transcripts of the confession, there are clear and detailed statements. But when looking at those details, things start to fall apart because they don't match the events that happened and the evidence left behind.

Professors Richard Leo and Richard Ofshe did a couple of papers that were really big in criminal legal news at the time they were published and in the papers the covered the case of my friend Joe Giarratano, who I talk about that has been in for 32+ years. They also did Jessie's confession, all with citations to where they got all of their information. Here is a little bit of it, just for your consideration:

"Although West Memphis, Arkansas police chose not record Misskelley
’s more than 10 hour interrogation, they did memorialize his 20 minute
statement on audio tape.275 The police threatened Misskelley, a seventeen
year old, borderline retarded young man,276 with being treated as one of the
perpetrators of the triple homicide if he did not cooperate with them and tell
them how Echols and Baldwin killed the boys.277 Over the course of this
lengthy, coercive interrogation, the detectives’ tactics — which included
falsely reporting to Misskelley that he failed a polygraph exam278 — caused
Misskelley to break down and comply with their suggestions. The interrogators
decided to turn the tape recorder on only after the account they sought
had been rehearsed several times.

...

During the taking of the recorded confession statement, Misskelley was
asked about the time the killings occurred. In his fiŽrst answer he describes the killings as happening at noon.284 This answer created a problem for the
prosecutor, Mr. Fogelman, who was supervising the interrogation and Detective
Gitchel, who was conducting it. Both of them, but not Jessie Misskelley,
knew that the boys did not get out of school until after 3:00 p.m. and did not
disappear until after 6:30 p.m.285 It took Gitchel, under Fogelman’s direction,
Žve revisitings of this subject, added pressure and numerous suggestions
to move Misskelley’s wrong answer progressively from noon to a time
after the boys had left school, Žfinished playing on their street and were last
seen.286
Misskelley’ confession also included the following demonstrably false
statements, revealing that he did not possess the kind of knowledge one
would expect from the true perpetrator:287
1. Misskelley said that the victims skipped school the day they were
killed when in fact they were at school;288
2. Misskelley said that the victims were sodomized when in fact there
was no trauma to the anuses of the victims according to the medical
examiners testimony at trial;289
3. Misskelley said the victims were bound with a big brown rope when
they were tied with their own shoelaces;290
4. Misskelley said that the victims were choked by Echols with a big
stick but the medical examiner testiŽed at trial that there were no
injuries to the victims’ throats;291 and
5. Misskelley said that the victims were killed on the dirt bank where
they were found when in fact no blood was found there, indicating
that the victims were killed elsewhere.292

It goes on and on, but sometimes confessions are not what they seem and its worth looking info further if you get a chance.

You have to download it, it's a PDF here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141365

 

[kalekona]

Yes, it is.....

You are right it is 100% clear- Jessie's confession was repeatedly corrected by the interrogators until they got the story that fit their case.

sorry even without the other inconsistency (of which there are many) in this case I can't get past that interrogation.

 

[annkitty0630]

Do you publish your research? I've only followed some of this case off and on. I have to say the celeb bandwagon turns me off and tends to color my opinion. I would like my information unbiased and factual. It seems to me things can be twisted to fit the side of whoever is presenting it.

ETA: In other words presented without commentary

Okay, now let's think outside the box. If you are truly reading the transcripts and police doc's, then, are they tainted by the innuendo and BIASED say so of the law enforcement to outrage the general (public) people at that time??? Do you not believe in the era of the early 90's that the public was feeding into the Voodoo and Satanic rituals which were associated with the California Witch Hunt for Child Molesters at Day Care Centers in California? So sorry, however, this has always infuriated me at what extent the law will go to secure a conviction and NEVER and I mean NEVER let their position go or admit on behalf of the people of their State they made a MISTAKE!! Again, JMHO, Ann.......... :great::rocker:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I was just thinking about all the new things that have came out over the length of time they were in. Cell phones weren't as popular, let alone smart phones. I figure they probably were into video games, look at how that has change since then. Internet and computer capabilities, wow they have alot to learn and catch up on. I wish them the best. My son was 7 when this happened.

I am the same age as Damien and I graduated high school in 93, so I have a good barrier to be able to see what came out when. Cell phones at that time were HUGE and high dollar!! They are going to have to get used to a lot, but I think they are going to have a lot of fun....at least after getting used to being around tons of people and learning how to sleep right again!

 

[indicat]

Okay, now let's think outside the box. If you are truly reading the transcripts and police doc's, then, are they tainted by the innuendo and BIASED say so of the law enforcement to outrage the general (public) people at that time??? Do you not believe in the era of the early 90's that the public was feeding into the Voodoo and Satanic rituals which were associated with the California Witch Hunt for Child Molesters at Day Care Centers in California? So sorry, however, this has always infuriated me at what extent the law will go to secure a conviction and NEVER and I mean NEVER let their position go or admit on behalf of the people of their State they made a MISTAKE!! Again, JMHO, Ann.......... :great::rocker:

I would never convict on this so called confession, hence the reason I said if I had sat on this jury I would not have voted to convict. It's something in my gut about Damien-and I'm talking the Damien now, not the Damien then. I know, that's a very unpopular thing to say, this is why I'm looking for a reason to feel better about their innocence.
HRCODEPINK did a great job with her post on the confession.

 

[krt]

Pardon my ignorance but why would they have to say guilty if they are innocent? That makes no sense to me..................

 

[annkitty0630]

The problem with deciding something based only on a confession is that sometimes (more often than you would think) those confessions are false. Either because the person has a problem with confabulation and blackouts or because they are so tired of being interrogated that they will say anything or because they have mental issues that causes them to do things that others wouldn't. Earl Washington had an IQ of 70 and was told that if he told them what they wanted to hear he could go home, so he confessed to 9 rapes and a murder, all of which he didn't commit.

While reading the transcripts of the confession, there are clear and detailed statements. But when looking at those details, things start to fall apart because they don't match the events that happened and the evidence left behind.

Love Ya Honey!! You are on the same page as me!! Bless You and Your Family!! Sweet Dreams every night, Ann!! :seeya:
Professors Richard Leo and Richard Ofshe did a couple of papers that were really big in criminal legal news at the time they were published and in the papers the covered the case of my friend Joe Giarratano, who I talk about that has been in for 32+ years. They also did Jessie's confession, all with citations to where they got all of their information. Here is a little bit of it, just for your consideration:

"Although West Memphis, Arkansas police chose not record Misskelley
’s more than 10 hour interrogation, they did memorialize his 20 minute
statement on audio tape.275 The police threatened Misskelley, a seventeen
year old, borderline retarded young man,276 with being treated as one of the
perpetrators of the triple homicide if he did not cooperate with them and tell
them how Echols and Baldwin killed the boys.277 Over the course of this
lengthy, coercive interrogation, the detectives’ tactics — which included
falsely reporting to Misskelley that he failed a polygraph exam278 — caused
Misskelley to break down and comply with their suggestions. The interrogators
decided to turn the tape recorder on only after the account they sought
had been rehearsed several times.

...

During the taking of the recorded confession statement, Misskelley was
asked about the time the killings occurred. In his fiŽrst answer he describes the killings as happening at noon.284 This answer created a problem for the
prosecutor, Mr. Fogelman, who was supervising the interrogation and Detective
Gitchel, who was conducting it. Both of them, but not Jessie Misskelley,
knew that the boys did not get out of school until after 3:00 p.m. and did not
disappear until after 6:30 p.m.285 It took Gitchel, under Fogelman’s direction,
Žve revisitings of this subject, added pressure and numerous suggestions
to move Misskelley’s wrong answer progressively from noon to a time
after the boys had left school, Žfinished playing on their street and were last
seen.286
Misskelley’ confession also included the following demonstrably false
statements, revealing that he did not possess the kind of knowledge one
would expect from the true perpetrator:287
1. Misskelley said that the victims skipped school the day they were
killed when in fact they were at school;288
2. Misskelley said that the victims were sodomized when in fact there
was no trauma to the anuses of the victims according to the medical
examiners testimony at trial;289
3. Misskelley said the victims were bound with a big brown rope when
they were tied with their own shoelaces;290
4. Misskelley said that the victims were choked by Echols with a big
stick but the medical examiner testiŽed at trial that there were no
injuries to the victims’ throats;291 and
5. Misskelley said that the victims were killed on the dirt bank where
they were found when in fact no blood was found there, indicating
that the victims were killed elsewhere.292

It goes on and on, but sometimes confessions are not what they seem and its worth looking info further if you get a chance.

You have to download it, it's a PDF here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141365

Thanks Hon, You are AWESOME!! You think just like me and we see things different than everyone else in my opinion!! Thanks for your insight and opinions, this is in my opinion a Monumental Day in the Law and I look forward to seeing how this may progress SOOOO they may reclaim their INNOCENCE after all these years!! I Intensely doubt it will ever happen, however, WE all know who did this and let's finally hold him accountable for his crime!! :rocker::woohoo::sick:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Pardon my ignorance but why would they have to say guilty if they are innocent? That makes no sense to me..................

Because if they say they are guilty the prosecutors not only save face, they also save money. Now, if they are later proven to be innocent they will not get money for their time. I am looking for a better source, but so far the only people who I have seen saying it are TMZ:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141365

"The deal doesn't prevent the WM3 from FILING a lawsuit -- however, the prosecutor believes any judge would simply throw such a case out before it went anywhere."

 

[kalekona]

I was just thinking about all the new things that have came out over the length of time they were in. Cell phones weren't as popular, let alone smart phones. I figure they probably were into video games, look at how that has change since then. Internet and computer capabilities, wow they have alot to learn and catch up on. I wish them the best. My son was 7 when this happened.

Life has certianly moved on without them all these years- my daughter turns 18 this year when we were talking about the case she can't believe that they have been in prison her entire life- that and the murders occurred the day before her cousin was born- it just boggles her.

 

[krt]

Because if they say they are guilty the prosecutors not only save face, they also save money. Now, if they are later proven to be innocent they will not get money for their time. I am looking for a better source, but so far the only people who I have seen saying it are TMZ:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141365

"The deal doesn't prevent the WM3 from FILING a lawsuit -- however, the prosecutor believes any judge would simply throw such a case out before it went anywhere."

IF they are truely innocent that is just absurd!!! Screw that...............

 

[casseole]

Thanks, HRCODEPINK. Had seen those points before, maybe in an earlier post by yourself.

 

[Steely Dan]

The problem with deciding something based only on a confession is that sometimes (more often than you would think) those confessions are false. Either because the person has a problem with confabulation and blackouts or because they are so tired of being interrogated that they will say anything or because they have mental issues that causes them to do things that others wouldn't. Earl Washington had an IQ of 70 and was told that if he told them what they wanted to hear he could go home, so he confessed to 9 rapes and a murder, all of which he didn't commit.

While reading the transcripts of the confession, there are clear and detailed statements. But when looking at those details, things start to fall apart because they don't match the events that happened and the evidence left behind.

Professors Richard Leo and Richard Ofshe did a couple of papers that were really big in criminal legal news at the time they were published and in the papers the covered the case of my friend Joe Giarratano, who I talk about that has been in for 32+ years. They also did Jessie's confession, all with citations to where they got all of their information. Here is a little bit of it, just for your consideration:

"Although West Memphis, Arkansas police chose not record Misskelley
’s more than 10 hour interrogation, they did memorialize his 20 minute
statement on audio tape.275 The police threatened Misskelley, a seventeen
year old, borderline retarded young man,276 with being treated as one of the
perpetrators of the triple homicide if he did not cooperate with them and tell
them how Echols and Baldwin killed the boys.277 Over the course of this
lengthy, coercive interrogation, the detectives’ tactics — which included
falsely reporting to Misskelley that he failed a polygraph exam278 — caused
Misskelley to break down and comply with their suggestions. The interrogators
decided to turn the tape recorder on only after the account they sought
had been rehearsed several times.

...

During the taking of the recorded confession statement, Misskelley was
asked about the time the killings occurred. In his fiŽrst answer he describes the killings as happening at noon.284 This answer created a problem for the
prosecutor, Mr. Fogelman, who was supervising the interrogation and Detective
Gitchel, who was conducting it. Both of them, but not Jessie Misskelley,
knew that the boys did not get out of school until after 3:00 p.m. and did not
disappear until after 6:30 p.m.285 It took Gitchel, under Fogelman’s direction,
Žve revisitings of this subject, added pressure and numerous suggestions
to move Misskelley’s wrong answer progressively from noon to a time
after the boys had left school, Žfinished playing on their street and were last
seen.286
Misskelley’ confession also included the following demonstrably false
statements, revealing that he did not possess the kind of knowledge one
would expect from the true perpetrator:287
1. Misskelley said that the victims skipped school the day they were
killed when in fact they were at school;288
2. Misskelley said that the victims were sodomized when in fact there
was no trauma to the anuses of the victims according to the medical
examiners testimony at trial;289
3. Misskelley said the victims were bound with a big brown rope when
they were tied with their own shoelaces;290
4. Misskelley said that the victims were choked by Echols with a big
stick but the medical examiner testiŽed at trial that there were no
injuries to the victims’ throats;291 and
5. Misskelley said that the victims were killed on the dirt bank where
they were found when in fact no blood was found there, indicating
that the victims were killed elsewhere.292

It goes on and on, but sometimes confessions are not what they seem and its worth looking info further if you get a chance.

You have to download it, it's a PDF here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141365

You are right it is 100% clear- Jessie's confession was repeatedly corrected by the interrogators until they got the story that fit their case.

sorry even without the other inconsistency (of which there are many) in this case I can't get past that interrogation.

I've seen recorded "confessions" where the police will say things like "No, it didn't happen that way. Did you use a hammer? Ok, you used a hammer. No she wasn't sexually assaulted are you sure you did that? Ok, you're mistaken about that..."

It's my belief that the police had to get somebody for this crime fast and they set up Misskelley to tell them what they wanted to hear. Who was the guy at the fast food restaurant? Why wasn't any blood or mud found in any of the three kids houses? Why isn't there any DNA linking the kids to the crime? Who tipped the police that there was a knife in the lake? Why didn't the cops record the entire Misskelley interview? Why wasn't Terry Hobbs interviewed until years later? Why did Terry Hobbs say that he never beat his stepson but two seconds later say that if he beat him he would have had him hold his hands above his head? Why do two women swear they saw Terry Hobbs with his stepson on that day and yet Terry Hobbs says he never saw them that day. Why is Terry Hobbs' DNA on a hair found in the binding of Stevie Branch? Why was his friends DNA found near the crime scene?

 

[kalekona]

Pardon my ignorance but why would they have to say guilty if they are innocent? That makes no sense to me..................

Well a very obvious reason is because Damien was on DEATH row-
then consider that it might have taken years to get a new trial if they even were granted one.
The people who believe they are guilty will always believe they are guilty no matter what a new trial might find- so they might as well be free rather than sitting in prison on principle.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

IF they are truely innocent that is just absurd!!! Screw that...............

There is also reference to it here:

"Beautiful things went down in Arkansas today. Beautiful beautiful things," Dixie Chicks' singer Natalie Maines, who was also at the court house, tweeted.

...

"All 3 boys will be set free today and all 3 are completely innocent. They must plead guilty as a technicality so they can't sue AK for $$," she added before correcting her incorrect State abbreviation in a later post. "3 men are free after 18 years of wrongful imprisonment and you guys are giving me state abbreviation grief. Fine! Arkansas is AR not AK!"

http://www.spinner.com/2011/08/19/west-memphis-3-free/

Also, not a great source, but I would imagine that it could be found on her Twitter feed.

 

[indicat]

Well a very obvious reason is because Damien was on DEATH row-
then consider that it might have taken years to get a new trial if they even were granted one.
The people who believe they are guilty will always believe they are guilty no matter what a new trial might find- so they might as well be free rather than sitting in prison on principle.

I was seriously wondering why they would plea too until their press conference. I was very impressed with Jason's reasoning.

 

[annkitty0630]

Pardon my ignorance but why would they have to say guilty if they are innocent? That makes no sense to me..................

Hi krt, You are by no means ignorant.... OUR LEGAL system has twists and turns that are truly unjustified, but, it is a wrangling to say that they are GUILTY but not without ever admitting they are INNOCENT!! This is the way the Arkansas Court System can in their own conscience let the WM3 go without ever having to admit they fabricated evidence and coerciced confessions to get a supposed just verdict in a case that should have never gone forward to a jury of crazy out of their mind every day god fearing citizens that thought satanic child killers were on the loose... This case in my opinion speak volumes of how our system works without ever admitting GUILT on the PART of our Government that supposedly looks out for us?? The West Memphis 3 have and always have been INNOCENT in my opinion... I am humbly glad to have witnessed IMO history when they let "CONVICTED KILLERS" Free......... Does that not speak VOLUMES in it self?? Again, Love Your Neighbors, they will LOVE you back!! Ann:great::great::rocker:

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Thank god we know the truth now and they have plead guilty. I guess with a 10-year parole they will have to keep their skirts pretty clean. No murdering little boys and mutilating their little bodies.

I do think they got off too easy on the 18 year sentence though.

 

[Steely Dan]

Pardon my ignorance but why would they have to say guilty if they are innocent? That makes no sense to me..................

To get out of jail. The Arkansas state attorney's weren't ever going to admit misconduct, the kids could have gotten a retrial but who knows what that judge would allow and not allow in the trial. As someone pointed out Damien was on DEATH ROW and I think a lot of people would take this deal to get off death row.

It's easy to sit at home behind a computer and have grave doubts about their pleading guilty without imagining what life in prison for 18 years has been like. JMO