Time Line

[dog.gone.cute]

I have a question regarding the Timeline and am hoping someone here at WS can answer and point me in the right direction ... there's a lot of info to read on this case and I am not sure where to find this:


On May 6, 1993 -- the three 8 year old boys were found murdered.

On June 3, 1993 -- J Misskelly was brought in for questioning by the WMPD, made a statement implicating himself and D Echols and C J Baldwin ... all 3 were arrested.


What I am wondering is WHAT HAPPENED from May 6 through June 3 that led the WMPD to bring in Misskelly, almost a month after finding the boys murdered ? And were there any "other supects or poi's" during this time ?


I did not follow this case and I saw it mentioned on the news the other day, so I thought I would check it out here at WS ... and it has "peaked" my interest !

Oh ... I have not yet formed an opinion as to whether the WM3 are G or NG ...

Thanks for any help !

 

[rain88]

We are a nice bunch of folks there

I must not be reading the right board then. I clicked on the link and started reading. What foul language and disgusting comments to people that don't agree with them.

 

[maxicut]

Fact: No physical evidence linking the WM3 to the crimes has been made public.

Fact: All of the WM3 had alibis for the afternoon and evening of May 5th.

Fact: Terry Hobbs has holes in his alibi for the evening of May 5th.

Fact: Jessie Misskelley has recanted his incriminating statements.

Fact: Vickie Hutchinson has said that all her statements were "a tissue of lies."

Fact: mtDNA that is a 97.5% match to Terry Hobbs was at the discovery ditch.

Fact: Damien Echols never confessed to LE nor did Jason Baldwin.

Fact: Dr. Perretti has never passed his certification examination.

Fact: The defense forensic pathologists (who have passed their certification examination) have called Perretti's findings into serious question.

Fact: "Dr." Dale Griffis got his doctorate from a diploma mill.

Fact: The Arkansas State Supreme Court voted unanimously to order an evidentiary hearing on this case because, in part, it was so terribly bungled by former Judge Burnett. (The main reason for the evidentiary hearing is, of course, the DNA found at the discovery ditch which Burnett refused to consider, just one example of his mishandling of this case.)

All of the above facts, plus my own research and analysis of this case, led me to believe that the WM3 are innocent of these crimes. Juries get it wrong sometimes. That's why we have an appeals process. Police can lie on the stand, too. That's why we need corroborating evidence along with testimony in order to be sure of the verdict in a case like this. With no corroborating evidence, I feel that any intelligent person would question these verdicts and want to find out the truth.

Facts, facts and more facts. thank you

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Fact: No physical evidence linking the WM3 to the crimes has been made public.

Fact: All of the WM3 had alibis for the afternoon and evening of May 5th.

Fact: Terry Hobbs has holes in his alibi for the evening of May 5th.

Fact: Jessie Misskelley has recanted his incriminating statements.

Fact: Vickie Hutchinson has said that all her statements were "a tissue of lies."

Fact: mtDNA that is a 97.5% match to Terry Hobbs was at the discovery ditch.

Fact: Damien Echols never confessed to LE nor did Jason Baldwin.

Fact: Dr. Perretti has never passed his certification examination.

Fact: The defense forensic pathologists (who have passed their certification examination) have called Perretti's findings into serious question.

Fact: "Dr." Dale Griffis got his doctorate from a diploma mill.

Fact: The Arkansas State Supreme Court voted unanimously to order an evidentiary hearing on this case because, in part, it was so terribly bungled by former Judge Burnett. (The main reason for the evidentiary hearing is, of course, the DNA found at the discovery ditch which Burnett refused to consider, just one example of his mishandling of this case.)

All of the above facts, plus my own research and analysis of this case, led me to believe that the WM3 are innocent of these crimes. Juries get it wrong sometimes. That's why we have an appeals process. Police can lie on the stand, too. That's why we need corroborating evidence along with testimony in order to be sure of the verdict in a case like this. With no corroborating evidence, I feel that any intelligent person would question these verdicts and want to find out the truth.

Do you have any links to documents to back up what you are saying?
TIA

 

[Pensfan]

I thought everybody knew the children were killed before 3 pm on May 5th.

Jessie Misskelley said so.

Jessie has an IQ of 72. He is not mentally retarded but with this IQ, abstract concepts are not understood. Telling time become impossible because time is an abstract concept. If you told him to be somewhere in 30 minutes, he would not be able to tell you what his watch will "say" at the time when he should be a specific place. He can look at a watch and see the big hand is on a specific number and the little hand is on a specific number, but he likely can't "read" the watch.


Pensfan
_________
verified on Websleuths
psychiatric mental health nurse

 

[RTC]

Where this case confuses me is that I thought I read somewhere that the coroner believes the boys died in the early morning hours of may 6th, not at dusk on the 5th.
so I am always scratching my head when people talk about alibis on the 5th.
Did I interpet something wrong?

 

[Nova]

Jessie has an IQ of 72. He is not mentally retarded but with this IQ, abstract concepts are not understood. Telling time become impossible because time is an abstract concept. If you told him to be somewhere in 30 minutes, he would not be able to tell you what his watch will "say" at the time when he should be a specific place. He can look at a watch and see the big hand is on a specific number and the little hand is on a specific number, but he likely can't "read" the watch.


Pensfan
_________
verified on Websleuths
psychiatric mental health nurse

I'm pretty sure JM can tell the difference between light and dark.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Chronology of Events
http://callahan.8k.com/custom3.html


You can see all the events and even look at some court documents of their appeals to find the FACTS in this crime. I find that the appeals are very interesting. I also find it interesting that the person who mentions the satanic practice is Damien Echols own mother as well as the violence he has displayed in their home and at school. Just look a round this site a bit because they have the actual documents and it's not something they are pulling out of the seat of their pants.




Trial Transcripts
http://callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html


Documents including lab reports
http://callahan.8k.com/custom.html

 

[IrishMist]

I must not be reading the right board then. I clicked on the link and started reading. What foul language and disgusting comments to people that don't agree with them.

I had the same take on that site, Rain. It's too bad, in a way, because I've seen people go in there with legitimate questions, or sincere requests for their side of the story-things that I'd like to know, too-but instead of getting thoughtful answers, the majority of these people are cussed out and told to go away.

What really gets me is when they claim that the supporters started it! Or post that if only someone came in and asked their questions with respect, they'd get their answers! As an outsider looking in, it doesn't seem that way to me.

To be fair, I can't read over there for any length of time, as I prefer more civilized discussion, so there may be instances I've missed. I just know that it really turned me off when I first started looking into this case.

 

[Pensfan]

I'm pretty sure JM can tell the difference between light and dark.

You can't have it both ways. If you believe the pathologists were incompetent because they were not board certified (which the Memphis Three fan club loves to mention), how can you believe their time of death as 1:00 am-5:00 am?

(Individuals with IQ's in the lower 70s may not be able to understand ante meridiem (am) and post meridiem (pm). They could understand if asked, "Was it late at night after the David Letterman show would be finished? Was it early in the morning before or around breakfast?" Time is a difficult concept for some with even a mild intellectual disability.)

 

[Compassionate Reader]

All facts are verified in either trial documents, the Rule 37 Abstracts or Pasdar depositions with the exception of the negatives (no physical evidence and Damien never confessed). Sorry, but you can't verify a negative.

Trial transcripts available on Callahans:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html

Pasdar depositions available on Callahans:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/hp_depositions.html

Rule 37 Abstracts available on Callahans:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37_abstract.html

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You can't have it both ways. If you believe the pathologists were incompetent because they were not board certified (which the Memphis Three fan club loves to mention), how can you believe their time of death as 1:00 am-5:00 am?

(Individuals with IQ's in the lower 70s may not be able to understand ante meridiem (am) and post meridiem (pm). They could understand if asked, "Was it late at night after the David Letterman show would be finished? Was it early in the morning before or around breakfast?" Time is a difficult concept for some with even a mild intellectual disability.)

IMO, the only incompetent pathologist was Peretti. The other guy the State called, Jennings, is not even a forensic pathologist; he's a clinical pathologist - the ones that determine if a growth is cancerous or not. So, I'm not saying he's incompetent, just unqualified for this case.

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/djennings.html

Peretti, the ME who had not passed his board certification test after repeated attempts, was the one who set TOD at 1 am to 5 am. This has been debated for years now, but my opinion is that he is wrong. I also have an issue with the coroner, Hale. When examining the bodies at about 4 pm on May 6th, he stated that there was posterior lividity but it wasn't fixed. If the lividity wasn't fixed, that means that the boys died sometime after 4 am on May 6th. (Hale's report is probably where Peretti got the idea of death between 1 am and 5 am.) I think he was wrong in stating that lividity was not fixed. Although the lividity blanched to pressure, I think that it was surface blanching only.

Here's the coroner's report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/kenth.html

I believe that the TOD was probably around 10 pm on May 5th. However, I don't believe that the boys were killed outright. I believe that they succumbed to wounds suffered at about 7 pm on May 5th. I'll explain it in my outline of my theory of the crime.

 

[Nova]

You can't have it both ways. If you believe the pathologists were incompetent because they were not board certified (which the Memphis Three fan club loves to mention), how can you believe their time of death as 1:00 am-5:00 am?

(Individuals with IQ's in the lower 70s may not be able to understand ante meridiem (am) and post meridiem (pm). They could understand if asked, "Was it late at night after the David Letterman show would be finished? Was it early in the morning before or around breakfast?" Time is a difficult concept for some with even a mild intellectual disability.)

It's the nons who want to have it both ways. JM was too impaired to tell time and would have been susceptible to the influence of DE and JB, but JM was perfectly able to withstand the threats and badgering of West Memphis LE.

JM originally said the children were assaulted at noon. I think he knows that noon isn't after dark. The children are accounted for until sunset. JM wasn't there.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Be sure to read about Echols mental health records so that you might be able to form your own opinion and thinking about past violence and mental state was right before the murders.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

 

[SmoothOperator]

It holds no water to say Jessie confessed to get the reward for his dad a car.. Maybe it'd be even a tad believable that a father would allow his son to confess to even being within miles much less right up in the middle of the entire murders... even tho ludicrous to believe even then..but to continue that argument for the 3 other confessions??

What was he still holding out for that new truck for daddy as late as Feb.1994 when he confesses to his involvement of pulverizing little Michael Moore even as an almost way of protecting him from being castrated like he watched Jason do to Christopher??.. How he explains that Jason came over to get on'm..speaking of Jason wanting to get on Michael who he'd been pulverizing but he told Jason..No way your gonna do this un' like I just seen You do to that un'..speaking of his castrating Chris..therefor Jessie goes back to pulverizing Michael so that Jason can't get to'm..

He says over and over in that confession that his attorneys did not want him to give "that he had to do something"..as in come clean that he couldn't take it no more and he didn't care what his attorneys were saying he wanted to get it out..

Also what is clearly indicated in this self induced confession is that he has not been in any way whatsoever interrogated, nor even so much as questioned whatsoever at any time in the hours or even days having led up to this fourth confession.. So all the bs about being tricked, manipulated, terrorized, and threatened with everything known to man to get a "false confession" out of Jessie again fails to hold even a droplet of water...

So which is it??? Was Jessie terrorized, forced, coerced, manipulated, tricked, and ultimately feared into that first confession???

...OR...

Was he and daddy in on it together or Jessie solely doing it for daddy and had purely self serving motives of getting in there and giving LE a "false confession" for $35,000 to get daddy a big ol' brand new truck??

Because obviously the two do not coincide in the least.. Neither are the case and not a soul here or on any other board has a legitimate or even believable excuse for why Jessie Misskelley four times over confessed.. and certainly nothing but confusion as to what the excuse is for that first "false confession".. It doesn't work both ways they are polar opposite of one another and are in no way similar but yet both are thrown up against the wall time and time again to see which one will stick...

 

[Pensfan]

It's the nons who want to have it both ways. JM was too impaired to tell time and would have been susceptible to the influence of DE and JB, but JM was perfectly able to withstand the threats and badgering of West Memphis LE.

JM originally said the children were assaulted at noon. I think he knows that noon isn't after dark. The children are accounted for until sunset. JM wasn't there.

Maybe you missed reading Jessie Misskelley's confession to his attorney. Did his attorney coerce this confession also?

http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-dan-stidham-february-8-1994/

It is also on callahan's but this site posted it in its entirety.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Maybe you missed reading Jessie Misskelley's confession to his attorney. Did his attorney coerce this confession also?

http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-confession-to-dan-stidham-february-8-1994/

It is also on callahan's but this site posted it in its entirety.

I just discussed that in another thread. He mistrusted his own attorney because the prosecution had been trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason (which he never did) and his attorney was trying to see if the statement he was going to make had any merit. When he discovered it didn't, he convinced Jessie not to make it that day. It was only after the prosecutors badgered him for several more days unethically and against the instructions of Stidham that he made the "official" statement on 2/17/94.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I just discussed that in another thread. He mistrusted his own attorney because the prosecution had been trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason (which he never did) and his attorney was trying to see if the statement he was going to make had any merit. When he discovered it didn't, he convinced Jessie not to make it that day. It was only after the prosecutors badgered him for several more days unethically and against the instructions of Stidham that he made the "official" statement on 2/17/94.

The portion that was bolded above to indicate emphasis on the specific statement that It was only after the prosecutors badgered him for several more days unethically and against the instructions of Stidham that Misskelley gave his fourth confession.. That statement is false and IMO the exact reason why people unfamiliar with the case that read false and untrue statements such as this don't have a clue that it's false and go away with false info that misleads people to believe it as fact...

The entirety of this fourth confession is available all over the net..listen to it..read the full transcript.. Not only is it false that badgering was done of Jessie for "days" leading up to the fourth confession.. It is clearly stated and agreed to by all parties present that Jessie had been in no way interrogated, questioned, badgered and that his counsel was even asked prior to their providing Jessie with diet coke to drink..with his counsel's approval of course that's fine..

There was no badgering done.. There wasn't so much as even light questioning done of this defendant in the hours and days leading up to his again self proposed, against all advice fourth confession that he states is something that he has got to do regardless of his attorneys advice for him not to do so..

 

[Cappuccino]

There didn't really need to be any badgering or interrogation. Jessie had just been told he was to spend the rest of his life in prison, so that right there gives him an incentive to try and do a deal with the prosecution. Jessie stops confessing the instant Judge Burnett refuses to guarantee a deal to reduce sentence in return for his testimony.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Again IMO false and misleading when it is stated as clear as day in the entire taped confession both before and after that Jessie was offered nor promised anything for his fourth confession.. To which he clearly states the answer of no!! With both of his counsel present..

So it may be some people's opinion that they believe somehow now Judge Burnett is responsible or at fault for why Jessie Misskelley gave a now FOURTH CONFESSION..AGAIN a fourth confession that was completely and solely brought forth at the wishes of Misskelley himself.. Some having that opinion does NOT make it a fact.. its an opinion and an assumption at best..

But yet here again there are two polar opposite statements being made as if they are fact..

One being that he is badgered and interrogated in the days leading up to the FOURTH CONFESSION..

And the other being stated that no badgering was necessary that it was all at the fault of Judge Burnett's..

Neither being a fact of any sort in Jessie Misskelley wanting and going thru with giving a FOURTH CONFESSION despite his counsel's advice not to do so.