WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[flourish]

Third, there ARE reasons Jessie would confess multiple times and be innocent. Contrary to what you think mentally handicapped people DO need to be told the same thing multiple times for it to stick (I've interacted with a few). Even if Jessie was told that Stidham didn't work for the state he'd still think otherwise unless it was drilled into his skull. Mentally handicapped people ALSO want to please authority so he may have thought Stidham WANTED him to confess.

Respectfully snipped by me, for space, emphasis, and content.

I am a disabilities professional. You are making some rather sweeping generalizations about people with disabilities. You may have interacted with a few, and formed some opinions based on those interactions, but those few don't necessarily represent the entire disabled population.

Some people with intellectual disabilities do want to please authority figures, just as some neuro-typical people want to please authority figures. However, it is not accurate to say "all" people with intellectual disabilities have that desire, because it's not true. For example, let's consider a person with ID (Intellectual disability, what you are calling a "mental handicap") who also has a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD). Someone with ODD is typically not going to want to please authority; rather the opposite. Someone with Asberger's may not need something repeated more than once, as they very well may have an incredibly amazing memory.

Note how I used words like, "may" and "typically?" That's because there are rarely, if ever, absolutes, especially when it comes to people.

Between these generalizations and the poster upthread who referred to people with disabilities as "retards" and "half a person," I'm cringing every time I open this thread! Which is a shame, because I've wavered back and forth with my opinions about this case, and look forward to learning more information. However, when I read these ignorant and rude statements, the good information gets missed as I simply can't put any stock into anything someone says when they show no compassion, respect, or true understanding of a vulnerable population.

So, Jessie may or may not have been more susceptible to interrogation techniques which are conducive to making false confessions, due to a possible intellectual disability (I say possible because I haven't read his diagnostic documents). What's the best way to ascertain if his confession(s) were accurate reflections of reality vs. planted information for a coerced confession?

 

[dogmatica]

Dear lord you're being obtuse.

One Jessie could NOT describe key details AT all. He couldn't describe the injuries weapons or location properly. The "excuse" that nons often give (that he was drunk) makes things even more complicated (since he would have, at night when it was pitch black and while drunk cleaned up numerous trace evidence, blood, foot prints, beer bottles, vomit and other evidence....while there were mosquitos everywhere.) Ted Bundy wouldn't have been able to pull it off and these are drunken *advertiser censored* teenagers. If you're really gullible enough to believe this I've got swampland in Florida to sell you.

Secondly, Jessie's alibi DOES hold up. 17 people (including people who didn't know him) give him an alibi, and the contract shows there WAS a practice that night. While one of the kids gets the payment date wrong the fact remains that the other players said Jessie was there each week. If anything him NOT being there would have stood out. Unfortunately teenagers in general have **** memories so the prosecution was able to bamboozle them.

Third, there ARE reasons Jessie would confess multiple times and be innocent. Contrary to what you think mentally handicapped people DO need to be told the same thing multiple times for it to stick (I've interacted with a few). Even if Jessie was told that Stidham didn't work for the state he'd still think otherwise unless it was drilled into his skull. Mentally handicapped people ALSO want to please authority so he may have thought Stidham WANTED him to confess.

Fourth, It WOULD have been possible for the bible confession to be coerced. Jessie had been convicted and wanted to see Daddy and Suzie again. The state, probably meeting him off the books, convinced him he could IF he did what they wanted and that his attorney's couldn't help him. If they turned him against his attorneys and convinced him it were in his interests to ignore them it would be child's play to manipulate him



By Jessie's account there was blood everywhere. For his story to make sense he and his friends would need to remove the blood (which becomes sticky) in a way that was not obvious (impossible in a drunken state) get the subtle areas while missing the most important one is nonsensical. There would have been far more.

2.) Except I discussed why they were all ********. That you have the reading comprehension of a turnip isn't my problem.

I don't think you understand what "obtuse" actually means. But that's neither here nor there. All of your rambling means nothing. Jessie Misskelley is not "handicapped". He's an idiot. A dumbass. He's is not and never was "handicapped" or "mentally retarded". The rest of your rant isn't worth responding to. It's all been debunked ad nauseam. How are those Logic 101 courses coming along?

 

[dogmatica]

Respectfully snipped by me, for space, emphasis, and content.

I am a disabilities professional. You are making some rather sweeping generalizations about people with disabilities. You may have interacted with a few, and formed some opinions based on those interactions, but those few don't necessarily represent the entire disabled population.

Some people with intellectual disabilities do want to please authority figures, just as some neuro-typical people want to please authority figures. However, it is not accurate to say "all" people with intellectual disabilities have that desire, because it's not true. For example, let's consider a person with ID (Intellectual disability, what you are calling a "mental handicap") who also has a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD). Someone with ODD is typically not going to want to please authority; rather the opposite. Someone with Asberger's may not need something repeated more than once, as they very well may have an incredibly amazing memory.

Note how I used words like, "may" and "typically?" That's because there are rarely, if ever, absolutes, especially when it comes to people.

Between these generalizations and the poster upthread who referred to people with disabilities as "retards" and "half a person," I'm cringing every time I open this thread! Which is a shame, because I've wavered back and forth with my opinions about this case, and look forward to learning more information. However, when I read these ignorant and rude statements, the good information gets missed as I simply can't put any stock into anything someone says when they show no compassion, respect, or true understanding of a vulnerable population.

So, Jessie may or may not have been more susceptible to interrogation techniques which are conducive to making false confessions, due to a possible intellectual disability (I say possible because I haven't read his diagnostic documents). What's the best way to ascertain if his confession(s) were accurate reflections of reality vs. planted information for a coerced confession?

Claiming Misskelley was "disabled", or whatever term they choose to use, is either a devious and dishonest tactic, or an ignorant tactic based on a lack of knowledge as to what being "handicapped" actually means - which one depends on the supporter in question. I can't tell with this one. Probably both.

 

[dogmatica]

Dear lord you're being obtuse.



Secondly, Jessie's alibi DOES hold up.

No, it doesn't. Echols alibi was destroyed on the stand. He lied over and over and his alibi was proven to be a lie. Baldwin didn't even ATTEMPT to give one, as his own lawyer admitted, he didn't try to present one as he simply couldn't.

Misskelley's alibi largely crumbled under cross-examination, as the witnesses were inconsistent and contradicted each other. The prosecution team also produced a receipt which suggested the trip had probably occurred in April, before the murders. Tellingly, Misskelley never mentions the wrestling trip in any of his police statements.

People who are innocent have alibis - they leave a trace (at the very least) as to where they actually were. All 3 had no alibi. FACT.

 

[Userid]

^ True. Also, JMK's alibi changes from being at a barbeque in his trailer park during the murders, to being at a wrestling match during the murders.

 

[dogmatica]

^ True. Also, JMK's alibi changes from being at a barbeque in his trailer park during the murders, to being at a wrestling match during the murders.

All part of the giant conspiracy to "railroad" these "innocent teenagers" no doubt.

 

[chaleigh26]

My son has a mild ID. He attended a special school for mild to moderate students with a cut off score IQ70. It's not unreasonable to believe that Jessie has a ID even though he didn't meet the criteria to have specialist schooling.

 

[dogmatica]

My son has a mild ID. He attended a special school for mild to moderate students with a cut off score IQ70. It's not unreasonable to believe that Jessie has a ID even though he didn't meet the criteria to have specialist schooling.

Misskelley's IQ scores varied widely. If you listen to him talk - he's not the brightest bulb, but he's clearly not "handicapped", "retarded" or "disabled". If you were to listen to supporters describe him without having seen/heard him communicate, you'd think he was a drooling, mentally challenged man child. That's simply not the case.

Regardless, supporters simply can't have it both ways. If he was "mentally disabled" or "retarded" or whatever hyperbolic description supporters dishonestly throw out there - it makes zero sense that the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer.

That's absolutely ridiculous. So he's only able to be manipulated and coerced by people who want to put him in prison for the rest of his life, but not by people who are trying to save him? That's utterly laughable. And anyone who's honest and has even a modicum of logic can see that.

Of course JM's multitude of confessions is only a small piece of the puzzle that shows the WM3 are rightly convicted child murderers who also pled guilty.

Still waiting for Echols and his millionaire celeb buddies to reveal the "real killer" and show the world this exonerating evidence they promised us. Any day now, I'm sure.

 

[flourish]

Misskelley's IQ scores varied widely. If you listen to him talk - he's not the brightest bulb, but he's clearly not "handicapped", "retarded" or "disabled". If you were to listen to supporters describe him without having seen/heard him communicate, you'd think he was a drooling, mentally challenged man child. That's simply not the case.

Regardless, supporters simply can't have it both ways. If he was "mentally disabled" or "retarded" or whatever hyperbolic description supporters dishonestly throw out there - it makes zero sense that the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer.

That's absolutely ridiculous. So he's only able to be manipulated and coerced by people who want to put him in prison for the rest of his life, but not by people who are trying to save him? That's utterly laughable. And anyone who's honest and has even a modicum of logic can see that.

Of course JM's multitude of confessions is only a small piece of the puzzle that shows the WM3 are rightly convicted child murderers who also pled guilty.

Still waiting for Echols and his millionaire celeb buddies to reveal the "real killer" and show the world this exonerating evidence they promised us. Any day now, I'm sure.

Wow you personally can tell whether or not someone meets the diagnostic criterion for an intellectual disability just by observing them?
And not even in person?

Yeah no.

He may or may not have an intellectual disability. However, no disability professional can or will diagnose anyone without doing formal assessments.

 

[flourish]

Claiming Misskelley was "disabled", or whatever term they choose to use, is either a devious and dishonest tactic, or an ignorant tactic based on a lack of knowledge as to what being "handicapped" actually means - which one depends on the supporter in question. I can't tell with this one. Probably both.

You can't tell with this one? Wow so charming. I'm actually undecided with this case. I used to be a supporter and then researched a bit more and climbed up onto the "I don't know" fence.

I don't have a dog in this fight as to whether or not Miskelley has ID. The true answer may offer some insight into the case, but it doesn't personally matter to me either way.

What does matter to me is spouting off about a topic you clearly don't understand and about which you apparently don't want to gain actual knowledge, or don't recognize your legitimate ignorance. Or both.

The disdainful attitude towards those with disabilities, Miskelley or otherwise, is abhorrent.

 

[Cappuccino]

^ True. Also, JMK's alibi changes from being at a barbeque in his trailer park during the murders, to being at a wrestling match during the murders.

When did Jessie claim to be at a barbecue during the murders?

He certainly never claimed to be at a wrestling match during the murders, his alibi was that he was at wrestling practice on the night of May 5th.

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't think you understand what "obtuse" actually means. But that's neither here nor there. All of your rambling means nothing. Jessie Misskelley is not "handicapped". He's an idiot. A dumbass. He's is not and never was "handicapped" or "mentally retarded". The rest of your rant isn't worth responding to. It's all been debunked ad nauseam. How are those Logic 101 courses coming along?

Do you have to be so snarky to fellow posters? What qualifications do you even have to distinguish between "a dumbass", as you so charmingly put it, and someone who is mentally handicapped?

Jessie doesn't need to be either of those things anyway to put him in a high risk group for false confessions. All he needs to be is either below average intelligence or a teenager - and, as we all know, he was both.

 

[Userid]

When did Jessie claim to be at a barbecue during the murders?

He certainly never claimed to be at a wrestling match during the murders, his alibi was that he was at wrestling practice on the night of May 5th.

Before he said he was at a wrestling match. Watch the Geraldo Rivera interview with JMK Sr. -- should be on Youtube. Many people at the trailer park claimed he was at the barbeque also.

Also, no need to split hairs ("match" "practice"). Sure you knew what I meant, arguments on semantics are pointless.

 

[dogmatica]

Do you have to be so snarky to fellow posters? What qualifications do you even have to distinguish between "a dumbass", as you so charmingly put it, and someone who is mentally handicapped?

Jessie doesn't need to be either of those things anyway to put him in a high risk group for false confessions. All he needs to be is either below average intelligence or a teenager - and, as we all know, he was both.

So now he's only "below average" intelligence? First he's "mentally disabled", "handicapped" and "borderline retarded"...but now he's just "below average"? And "below average" people are able to be "coerced" over and over and over again, post conviction, without the presence of the actual people who are doing the "coercion"? But he can't be "coerced" by his own lawyer to stop confessing? Do you not see the ridiculousness of this? So in the presence of the police, he's a mentally disabled manchild who can be convinced to say anything that will send him to prison, but once he's in the presence of his own lawyer, and the bad guys (the police) are nowhere around - and then he suddenly is only "below average" and is now capable of making his own decisions and not being coerced? Come on!

Regarding "snarkiness" - if someone calls me obtuse in this context, they surely don't understand what that word actually means. And so, I will call them on it. And "snark" in this thread is hardly reserved for me.

 

[dogmatica]

Once again supporters, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a person being mentally handicapped to the point that they can be coerced over and over again, even in the absence of the people who allegedly did the coercing - to confess to a crime they didn't commit, and then have him not able to be coerced when it comes to his own best interest (ie - to STOP confessing). It simply does not work that way. And you know it.

By supporters logic, Jessie Misskelley was only able to be talked into making things up that will destroy his life and send him to prison forever. But when it comes to doing something that will save his *advertiser censored*, and prevent him from going to prison, nope, he's suddenly headstrong and resolute and can't be talked into anything. How can you reconcile that? You can't.

 

[Cappuccino]

Before he said he was at a wrestling match. Watch the Geraldo Rivera interview with JMK Sr. -- should be on Youtube. Many people at the trailer park claimed he was at the barbeque also.

Also, no need to split hairs ("match" "practice"). Sure you knew what I meant, arguments on semantics are pointless.

So where did Jessie ever claim to be at a barbecue? That was your claim, after all...I'll quote your words.

JMK's alibi changes from being at a barbeque in his trailer park during the murders, to being at a wrestling match during the murders.

When was Jessies's alibi ever about being at a barbeque during the murders? And when did it change to being at a wrestling match?

And that last is being kind, because we all know he never claimed to be at any wrestling match.

 

[Cappuccino]

So now he's only "below average" intelligence? First he's "mentally disabled", "handicapped" and "borderline retarded"...but now he's just "below average"? And "below average" people are able to be "coerced" over and over and over again, post conviction, without the presence of the actual people who are doing the "coercion"? But he can't be "coerced" by his own lawyer to stop confessing? Do you not see the ridiculousness of this? So in the presence of the police, he's a mentally disabled manchild who can be convinced to say anything that will send him to prison, but once he's in the presence of his own lawyer, and the bad guys (the police) are nowhere around - and then he suddenly is only "below average" and is now capable of making his own decisions and not being coerced? Come on!

Regarding "snarkiness" - if someone calls me obtuse in this context, they surely don't understand what that word actually means. And so, I will call them on it. And "snark" in this thread is hardly reserved for me.

What do you mean by now? Jessie has always been below average intelligence, and it must surely be common knowledge that he was 17 years old at the time of his confession.

Show me evidence that Jessie was either, a) above average intelligence: or b) over the age of 20.

 

[dogmatica]

What do you mean by now? Jessie has always been below average intelligence, and it must surely be common knowledge that he was 17 years old at the time of his confession.

Show me evidence that Jessie was either, a) above average intelligence: or b) over the age of 20.

By "now" I mean you are changing from "mentally disabled" to "below average intelligence". Two drastically different things. Which is it? Is he "borderline <modsnip>" or just "below average intelligence"? I never claimed he was above average intelligence. And I never said anything about his age. <modsnip>

 

[dogmatica]

What do you mean by now? Jessie has always been below average intelligence, and it must surely be common knowledge that he was 17 years old at the time of his confession.

Show me evidence that Jessie was either, a) above average intelligence: or b) over the age of 20.

How you deduced from my post that I was claiming Misskelley was "above average intelligence" is truly baffling. Perhaps that sort of radical misinterpretation of facts is what leads you to believe these child killers are innocent.

 

[flourish]

There's a saying, "you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

In this case, the consistent rude tone and snarkiness only detracts from the argument. So is it a matter of really wanting to provide information and discuss, or is it more of a bullying "acknowledge I'm right!"

I read this section because I am on the fence and thought I'd get more information about the actual case. It's disappointing.