Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why did Misskelly have a trial if he confessed?
Wouldn't Misskelly have to recant his confession in order to plead not guilty?
He confessed originally, then pled not guilty after the fact.
Pretty sure even if he pled guilty, he would still have to go to court. It obviously wouldn't have been as long a trial, but confessors still have to go through the motions (I imagine because there are still whack jobs that falsely confess and even try pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit -- but they still have to convince the state and the judge of their guilt before sentencing).
I believe I get it now. He says he was there but didn't commit murder.
That is were I'm having trouble understanding. He admits to doing it but pleads that he didn't.
Of course, many of us believed that JM was coerced into "confessing" by LE officials. His IQ is 72, which makes him highly susceptible to manipulation - especially by one in perceived authority over him. With such a low IQ, IMO, it was unethical at least to interview him without an attorney present - even with his father's permission! As to "confess[ing] (over and over)," again, many of us believe that the multiple statements were coerced, at least in some degree - that LE took advantage of a young man with a very low IQ because they were under pressure to solve the case. (It was almost a month old at the time.) I don't believe that LE didn't know JM was mentally challenged. In a small town like West Memphis, everyone knows who rides the "short bus!" So, despite their protestations to the contrary on the stand, IMO, LE knew that they were dealing with a very gullible "suspect" in JM, and acted dishonorably to close the case. IMO, police can lie - even on the stand.
As to why there was a trial, JM did recant the confession and entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charges. However, even if he didn't, as others have stated, there would have been a trial. It may have only been a "bench trial," which is more like a hearing. That would have been something that an attorney could have opted for, if he believed his client had given a valid confession of the crime. That would have saved the State money and the families of the victims grief, too. However, since DS didn't believe JM to be guilty (at least not by the time the trial was scheduled), a jury trial was held.
^ Agree. JM's mental state is always exaggerated. He was a "slow" teenager, but not retarded.
I always find it curious how supporters claim in his subsequent confessions how he had memorized verbatim the exact details he corrects from his original confession, by listening in the trial; and was therefore able to perfectly recite all of this new information he supposedly had just learned by simply listening (keeping his head down the entire trial on top of it). He's retarded, but he has the ability to do that evidently....right.
Why did Misskelly have a trial if he confessed?
A confession and a guilty plea aren't the same thing.
However, multiple confessions, several post conviction, are indicative of guilt.
He confessed originally, then pled not guilty after the fact.
Pretty sure even if he pled guilty, he would still have to go to court. It obviously wouldn't have been as long a trial, but confessors still have to go through the motions (I imagine because there are still whack jobs that falsely confess and even try pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit -- but they still have to convince the state and the judge of their guilt before sentencing).
That is were I'm having trouble understanding. He admits to doing it but pleads that he didn't.