You are/were a teacher and you posted your very negative judgement on children with intellectual disabilities when the same behavior can be found in children who are not intellectually disabled. <modsnip>
JM testified multiple times including once to his father. It is illogical and extremely unlikely that a father would manipulate his son to lie to him and state that he participated in the brutal murders of three children if he actually did not participate.
Pensfan
_______
verified
psychiatric mental health nurse
I am retired which is why I now have time to post on boards about this case which I have followed since 1996. If I were still teaching, I wouldn't have time to post as I do. When I was teaching, I was always sensitive to my students' needs. I was well-respected and well-loved. BTW, ad hominem attacks weaken an argument.
I was
not making negative judgements. I was simply reporting things the way they are. Refusing to see the truth of things is not helpful to anyone, and students who are molly-coddled and allowed to believe that they can be electrical engineers when they can't pass Algebra 1 are being set up for some major disappointments in life IMO.
Can you provide a link to Jessie confessing to his father? I know that, before he had talked to his son, Jessie, Sr. had said that he didn't know if Jessie, Jr. was guilty or not. However, after talking to his son, and ever since then, Jessie, Sr. has maintained Jessie, Jr.'s innocence.
Jessie, Jr. has made four separate statements, all available on the Blackboard, incriminating himself and Damien and Jason. The first was on June 3, 1993, the day the teens were arrested. It was so error-filled that the judge (Pal Rainey) would not issue warrants for the arrests.
So, the WMPD got another statement, the "clarification" statement, later that afternoon. It was also error-filled, but somewhat better, although it is obvious to me that the police were asking leading questions throughout in order to get Jessie to say what they wanted to hear. He was happy to oblige. Because of his mental disability (low IQ), Jessie has trouble telling a coherent story. Answering questions works much better for him. However, it can also lead to his giving false information.
There are two post-conviction statements also. I've always wondered why the State wanted post-conviction statements from Jessie. I know that they wanted him to testify against Damien and Jason, but he would have to appear in court. A statement couldn't be introduced unless it could be cross examined by the defense. So, why did the police need these statements? IMO, it was because they knew his original statements were weak and error-filled. They were thinking about appeals down the road and felt that they'd need a more factual statement.
His third statement was on February 8, 1994, four days after his conviction. This statement was made to his own attorney, Dan Stidham. The State had been trying to get Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason in their upcoming trial. Stidham had been told that Jessie wanted to testify. He came to see what Jessie would say. This is often called the "Bible" statement because he had his hand on a Bible when giving it.
Much has been made of this statement because it was made to his own attorney. However, much of the information contained in it simply doesn't fit the crime scene or the wounds, etc. on the bodies. Very telling is the point at which, after asking Jessie to describe the scene of the crime, Stidham shows Jessie a map created by the police of the discovery ditch area. Jessie simply doesn't recognize anything on the map and keeps saying, "This ain't right." Stidham tries to help him make sense of it, but the whole statement is ridiculous simply because it's a post conviction statement. Anything that he gets right he could have learned at his own trial or from the relentless pressure from the prosecution. Bottom line, after hearing Jessie's statement, Stidham was able to convince Jessie not to testify against Damien and Jason.
The final statement Jessie made was on February 17, 1994. This is often called the "Second Confession." Again, this is a post conviction statement made against the wishes of his attorneys. Also of interest is that his attorneys weren't notified until about an hour before Jessie made the statement that he was making a statement. IMO, that was done so the attorneys wouldn't have time to change Jessie's mind like they did on February 8th.
When reading this, please pay attention to the conversation with Jessie and his attorneys that precedes the statement. It is obvious to me that the prosecution has been telling Jessie that trusting his attorneys landed him in prison. They managed, by relentless interrogations, to make Jessie believe that his own attorneys weren't on his side. Again, this last statement contains more actual facts than any of the others, but, again it's post-conviction and even this statement contains significant errors when compared to the expert testimony at the Rule 37 hearing.
After making this statement, Jessie was allowed to talk to his father. After talking to his father, Jessie decided not to testify. Some people believe that he refused to testify because Burnett disallowed a deal, but I believe that he refused to testify because his father told him that he should tell the truth. The truth is that Jessie didn't kill those little boys and doesn't know who did.
I would give you links to all four statements, but the Blackboard is experiencing problems at the moment.
