1.) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Jessie claimed they were raped. Even Peretti said that was unlikely (though since he tried to say they could be in public it was clear he was paid *advertiser censored*). He said they were beaten with sticks and strangled. Neither of those were true. He said that they wriggled in the water like eels, that there was blood flying everywhere even though luminol testing revealed only small amounts of blood (nowhere near the amount that justified Jessie's story), and that you could see certain locations (when in fact you couldn't.) He said that the water was deep enough to cover him when it was actually shallow, and that they were dropped in even though Michael's head was forced into the mud by someone wearing TENNIS SHOES (all three boys wore boots). He said michael drowned where he lay even though Michael's body was found SOUTH of the position where he would have been. He said they were forced to give oral sex when there's no evidence and that the whiskey bottle is relevant even though a.) the only part found was the head b.) FOUR brands had the same head and c.) it was found under an overpass.
He also claimed that he entered the woods via a pipe bridge even though the only such bridge let to a completely different section of woods completely (this was in the final confession by the way). He also gets iffy about the time they arrived. He also claimed he met them in lakeshore after originally saying they met in the woods. He also claims the kids landed some blows even though when Damian was photographed shirtless less than two days later there were no bruises or injuries. He also claims he beat Michael's face extensively when Michael's face didn't have that degree of injury
Jessie didn't know the location; he couldn't describe the weapons or the injuries. And Mitchell and Ridge's attempts to guide him weren't even close to subtle. So no he got next to nothing right. At this point you have to be an idiot to put stock in the confession (i've read the bible confession one from late February. It's one of the most incoherent pieces of rubbish I've ever read.)
June 3, 1993: The first confession, to local detectives. Admittedly there are times when it seems like his answers are manipulated, but there are also times when Jessie sticks to his word regardless and times when the detectives accept his answers.
August 19, 1993: Jessie meets with his defence attorneys. They make clear that he'll be going to prison for a long time, possibly for life, and discuss plea bargaining options. He goes over some details again and doesn't retract anything, even though he's plainly told the consequences and says he understands. Why wouldn't he use this opportunity to get his lawyers on his side, if indeed he was innocent?
December 10, 1993: Now Jessie tells his attorneys that the confession was made up. It makes sense to me that he would change his mind at this point: he's been in prison for 5 months, he's probably realising "this sucks actually", and he knows he has a trial coming up. Interestingly, the attorneys try to shape Jessie's words in a very similar manner to the detectives - they constantly ask if he was treated badly, if they made him tell the story over and over, if they stopped and restarted the tape, etc...It's like they're getting Jessie to confirm their planned defence.
December 15, 1993: Jessie talks with a doctor, and maintains that he wasn't in the woods and fabricated the confession by following the detectives' lead. But he certainly remembers a lot of details from his apparently fake confession 5 months earlier.
February 5, 1994: Immediately after his trial and conviction, Jessie confesses in the police car on the drive to the prison. It's like he's realised "Okay fine, I've lost now so I may as well be honest again". Presumably he can't deal with the guilt.
February 8, 1994: This one is the true unavoidable, for me. Jessie gives a full confession, in private, to his own defence lawyers.
STIDHAM: Okay. Jessie, a few minutes ago I asked you about making some statements to the Officers when they transported you from Piggott to Pine Bluff. You told me that you had told them some stuff. Is that Correct?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
STIDHAM: And at first you told me that you were just making it up, that you were lying to them, and then you placed your hand on the Bible and told me that you were there when these boys got killed.
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
STIDHAM: Uh, what's the truth, Jessie? I want to know the truth.
MISSKELLEY: The truth is, me and Jason and Damien done it.
STIDHAM: You were there when the boys were killed?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
STIDHAM: Now, what's going to be very important is for you to tell me why it was that you have been maintaining that you weren't there all this time?
MISSKELLEY: I was scared.
STIDHAM: what were you scared of?
MISSKELLEY: I always lied and I hadn't ever put my hand on the Bible and swore. Nobody didn't tell me to do that. If they would have told me that at first, I would have done it. Nobody told me to put my hand on the Bible.
STIDHAM: Okay. So basically, you've been lying to me and Mr. Crow for the past seven, or so months - about not being there when in fact you were there?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
Why would he possibly say this if he was innocent?! What was there to gain? There's no reward money, no need to placate the police, no extra media attention...?
February 17, 1994: Jessie confesses again, this time with the prosecuting lawyers present. His own lawyers practically beg him not to say anything but Jessie says he "wants something to be done".
February 21, 1994: Jessie speaks to one of his lawyers on the phone. He doesn't retract anything. He says he can't decide whether or not to testify in Damien and Jason's trial because he's scared.
Now seriously, I ask you, how can we ignore all this? Whatever else may be unclear, contradictory, or suspicious about the case...How can these later confessions be explained away? Legitimate question - does anyone feel that they can comfortably ignore these? Can you continue to suspect Terry Hobbs?
While the confessions may not be perfectly consistent or in line with what was indicated by the autopsies, every confession has essentially the same structure, from the first to the one with his lawyers 8 months later: They were drinking in the woods, they heard the kids nearby, he and Jason hid, Damien called them over, Damien attacked one and then the other kids started hitting him, he and Jason emerged and attacked one boy each, he grabbed Michael Moore who managed to run away until he caught him (and indeed, Michael was found in a different spot), Damien had a stick that he hit them with, Jason had a knife and cut at one boy's penis, D+J performed (or simulated) sexual things, they tied the boys up and threw them in the water, then Jessie left before the others and didn't see what they did with the clothes or the bikes, and he vomited on the way home. This is always the story he tells, even if there are slight differences in detail. If he wasn't really there, would he have such a clear story in his mind?
Any of those errors and inconsistencies seem quite explainable to me when you consider that he was drunk on whiskey, and wouldn't have been looking closely at what the other two were doing if he had to run after Michael and was then attacking him from further away. He probably had a vague idea and that's it. He also clearly has no shame embellishing his stories and just saying thing to trick people (he admits this), which yes, makes it difficult to know what to believe but...still.
Jessie was/is pretty slow and naive, no doubt about that, but the "mental retardation" thing has been wildly overstated. Before the murders, he apparently had an IQ test with a score of 88, which is actually categorised as "average". It was only before his trial that it dropped down to 72, presumably a dumbing down to help his defence, and even that score is only below average. You can tell from videos, testimonies and transcripts that he's not an innocent, dumb child in a man's body. He also had a history of violence and crime.
The main arguments against the WM3's guilt seems to be 1) lack of motive, and 2) lack of physical evidence. But unfortunately it's a reality that people are capable of random acts of horrific violence against children - even perpetrated by other children (you only need to look at the awful James Bulger Murder for proof that). It's feasible that this is all it was. As for the latter, there was hardly any physical evidence period. The crime scene was wet and muddy, and the initial investigation was by all accounts very poor.
Finally, maybe if one of the three suspects had a solid alibi it would be possible to shrug-off Jessie's confessions as a bizarre bid for attention or something, but the reality is - none of them can demonstrate where they were that night to disprove his story.
2.) Wrong actually. Jessie claimed he vomited when no vomit was found. There were no beer bottles or sources of alcohol found at the scene even though these guys were allegedly drunk out of their minds. Idiot teenagers are not going to be able to do a good job cleaning up that. They also claimed they cleaned the blood off by wiping the reeds....yet nothing happened and it would have been sticky. At this point you're making excuses to explain away your stupidity
They didn’t find old vomit on the ground in swampy land with wild animals all over the place? Lol. Oh, case closed then! No beer bottles? Hmm. Can you comprehend perhaps they we’re drinking elsewhere? Or threw their bottles somewhere else? You have no idea what their “cleaning” skills were. Idiot teenagers? Supporters always claim how intelligent Echols and Baldwin are. Let’s not be silly. My “stupidity”? You know you’ve lost when you resort to petulant name calling.
3.) You obviously know VERY few handicapped people. I've known plenty and even though some were perfectly eloquent they were still handicapped. Jessie was in a special eds class in a state that usually goes out of it's way to avoid putting them in special eds classes. That should tell you everything you need to know
Once again, profess JM was “retarded” or “handicapped” all you want. Doesn’t make it true. Your assertion I have been around “very few” handicapped people is complete speculation, and your implication you’re some sort of expert is just silly.
4.) Two problems; in general law enforcement refuse to admit a **** up unless they have no choice so unless the evidence they had was 100% accurate the state may well have told them to go to hell even if they did have information.
In at least two cases (Madison hobley and Clarence Brandley) it's painfully obvious who the actual killer is and in both cases the state's response was "**** you we don't care, they're still guilty." I'm guessing that even if the WM3 gave the state everything the state would gleefully ignore it and since media interest died the moment they walked out the door. And another problem is that in some ways law enforcement are the only ones who can advance it
In fact they even explained that; Michael Hobbs allegedly has knowledge but only the state has the power to compel Michael hobbs to give an answer by calling him to a grand jury. The ball's in the state's court for the most part and the state would rather pretend Terry isn't a monster who beat his son and murdered three small children. And since they've been released the media mostly lost interest so if they try to raise it people don't much care.
The state chose to accept the alford plea because they would have gotten crushed in a new trial and they knew it. So no. The WM3 won this one in the end. Most people who follow the case and have read callahan conclude the same
Once again – you claim to know umbrella facts about something. “In general law enforcement…”. Your speculative opinions don’t hold any water. “in fact”, “allegedly”. Means nothing.
If the state would’ve “gotten crushed” in a new, trial, why wouldn’t the defense go to trial, get the convictions overturned and sue the state? And where is this exculpatory evidence we were promised? So if the
defense wouldn’t have presented the Alford Plea, the WM3 would’ve been exonerated and sued the state for millions, but instead, they plead guilty and just decided to not present this smoking gun that clears their names and proves someone else did it? That’s hilarious.
5.) Except that almost all supporters HAVE read callahan and came to the conclusion (after reading the confessions) that Jessie's words were worthless. All the big ones have anyway and I'm willing to bet even most of the celeb supporters have read it too. That they still came to that means that you aren't being honest.
Here we go again. “Almost all supporters have read Callahan”. You have zero proof of that, and even if that were true, you have no proof they understood it, which you clearly don’t. The “celeb supporters”? They’re entertainers. That’s all. Thy have absolutely zero credibility in regards to murder cases.