WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[LordYAM]

Arkansas DOC, much like many DOCs, implements an intake or evaluation period for inmates in which eventual facility placement is determined based on the needs of the inmate and general facility statistics such as population and staff at that particular time. It is true that with a pending criminal trial for DE and JB, continued contact with counsel is certainly plausible, but with JM already convicted and serving sentence, the nexus between counsel's advice on JM testifying and counsel's necessity for continued access to JM was destroyed. JM's relationship with counsel was now relegated to "witness", not "defendant". Therefore, DOC's decision and protocol on inmate transfer would easily take precedence over any additional pending criminal proceedings in which JM was not facing charges. I don't disagree that this very well impacted the subsequent conviction of DE and JB, but there just doesn't appear to be strong evidence for the belief that this particular chain of events were the result of some sophisticated legal and psychological strategy on behalf of the prosecution. JM was convicted, sentenced, and entered the correctional system in the same manner as any other inmate. The widely held belief of "causation" here is nothing more than spurious correlation.

Maybe but part of it was timing. About a week earlier they had tried to get Jessie to testify. After talking with Dan he decided not to despite initially making a tortured and confused confession of sorts.

That the transfer occurred shortly after this and involved them not telling Dan does come across as a wee bit odd given the circumstances.

 

[LordYAM]

Also in the jury notes the words "Jessie's confession" were on there. That means it was considered. The thing is.....Jessie's refusal to testify means it SHOULD NOT have been in play. That means arnold broke the law by using and releasing it during deliberations. And it seems to have been one of the game breakers.

In the Madison Hobley case (Hobley allegedly set a fire that killed his family and others) it turned out the state's star witness was an arsonist himself; the defense tried to bring it up at trial but were blocked. Afterwards FIVE of the jury members said that had they known the witness was accused of arson they probably wouldn't have voted to convict. With the confession it's similar. Had Jessie's confession not been in play Damian and Jason MAY WELL have won

 

[Name]

Don't bother reading LordYam's posts, they are flat out wrong and full of lies.

Here are the facts.

On February 4, the day of Jessie's conviction, Jessie confessed in the car ride on the way to jail that he was not surprised by his sentence, and went into details about the murder. Keep in mind it's a THREE HOUR car ride to Pine Bluff from Rector

Brent Davis, Prosecutor, gets the incident report about Jessie's February 4 th confession and tells Dan Stidham (Jessie's lawyer) about this. They ask Stidham to meet with Jessie and ask him about this.

On February 8th, Dan Stidham then goes to the jail, WITH BRENT DAVIS, FOGLEMEN to ask Jessie about his February 4th confession. Jessie says he was lying in the car ride. Instead of believing his innocent client, Stidham gets a Bible and asks Jessie to tell him the truth, thus the Bible confession. During this time, prosecutors DID NOT speak with Jessie. This is also when they went down to hunt the broken bottle under the overpass (which they found).

On February 15, Jessie confessed again to his Stidham and Crowe, this time with his Dad present, but after his dad broke down, Jessie said "I wasn't there, I won't testify". Stidham told Brent Davis Jessie would not be testifying.

Davis was highly skeptical and contacted Gregory Crowe (Jessie's other lawyer) about Jessie testifying because he felt Stidham had lost sight of Jessie's interests. Davis got a COURT ORDER to transfer Jessie after Crowe said he would be "okay" with Jessie making a statement, but knew Dan would not be.

On February 17th, Davis contacted Crowe to say Jessie was being transferred. It's a THREE HOUR drive to Rector, and Crowe KNEW he was being transferred. Instead of meeting Jessie there, Crowe told Davis to call him back when Jessie gets there to let him know if he wants to make a statement. They called Crowe, and Jessie said over the phone that "Yes I want to make a statement".

So it was Gregory Crowe, who willingly and KNOWINGLY let his "innocent" client, who had a knack for confessing to a crime he did not do, be alone with prosecutors while he drove to Rector (only 30 minutes from his office) instead of meeting them there beforehand. In the meantime, they got Jessie food and Crowe arrived. They called Dan and were all sitting around waiting for him. While waiting for Dan, Crowe made a comment that it was Dan, and not Jessie, who needed the psych evaluation.

When Dan arrived, he met with Jessie and did all he could to prevent Jessie from giving a statement. He was yelling at him, calling him names, and even threatened to have him handcuffed. Poor, easily suggestible Jessie who normally is supposed to crumble under the slightest pressure, being mentally handicapped and all, told Dan to kindly **** off, and he wanted to make a statement. On the tape, you can hear Dan over and over again, pleading with Jessie to not make a statement. This was after he spent 15 minutes (or 30-45 minutes, depending on conflcing reports) threatening him.

As mentioned before, as a "witness" to the case, the prosecutors did not need to contact his lawyers to begin with, yet they were in constant contact with them.

So you see, this whole conspiracy that they did not know Jessie was being transferred was a lie.Just another one that supporters need to tell themselves to help them sleep at night.

 

[CoolJ]

Do you folks still not understand that people confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time? ESPECIALLY those who are challenged mentally.

 

[Name]

Do you folks still not understand that Jessie was not challenged mentally, and confessed OVER and OVER and OVER again to his lawyers, friends, dad, etc. Do you folks understand how RARE it is to confess to TRIPLE HOMICIDE outside of a interrogation room? Usually when innocent people confess to crimes they don't commit, it's under intense police pressure (which Jessie never claimed happened), and they know to tell their lawyer they didn't do it (which Jessie kept telling his lawyers he DID do it.)

And the majority of people who confess who crimes are guilty of crimes. This is a fact that Jessie's experts even conceded on the stand.

 

[flourish]

Do you folks still not understand that Jessie was not challenged mentally, and confessed OVER and OVER and OVER again to his lawyers, friends, dad, etc. Do you folks understand how RARE it is to confess to TRIPLE HOMICIDE outside of a interrogation room? Usually when innocent people confess to crimes they don't commit, it's under intense police pressure (which Jessie never claimed happened), and they know to tell their lawyer they didn't do it (which Jessie kept telling his lawyers he DID do it.)

And the majority of people who confess who crimes are guilty of crimes. This is a fact that Jessie's experts even conceded on the stand.

Do you have proof he wasn't intellectually disabled?

 

[Name]

Do you have proof he was? With an IQ of 72 he's "borderline" intelligence. However, his performance IQ had previously tested at 88, and somehow dropped a whopping 12 points when he's told if he scores low enough, he can't be considered for the death penalty. The fact is, his expert conceded there is concern that Jessie was faking his "handicap" for a benefit.

A supporter turned non, who formed a close relationship with Jessie, talked to him frequently said he was not mentally handicapped and said she "wished supporters could have seen his face" when she told him how everyone thinks he's mentally challenged.

Even based on the little snippets you see in PL1, he's NOT retarded. He seems pretty average intelligence for his demographics. Listen to his phone conversation like "THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION!" when his girlfriend asked if he's nervous. Look at how quick he shoots a "Are you crazy!" face at his sister when she says "Damien's a good kid". He interacts with family, friends normal. He reads a card, he can write notes to his family (exclaiming how he got a "bible"), he held a job, took care of himself because of his 'absentee' dad.

The police didn't notice a handicap, his lawyers didn't think he had a handicap. His dad didn't seem so concerned about his son's "disability" when he led cops right to him to get questioned.

Does he have verbal/communication issues? Yes. But he's not retarded enough to keep implicating himself in triple homicide.

If anything, Jessie's "low intelligence" would make him more prone to CONFESS, because lying takes a LOT more mental power if there is feelings of guilt/remorse (which Jessie obviously displayed)

The Jessie is so retarded is another lie supporters need to tell themselves to help them sleep at night.

 

[flourish]

I did not make claims about his cognitive functioning. You did. When one makes a claim, one should provide proof of their claim.

 

[Name]

Essentially, I would want to read his assessments. Preferably I'd do my own. At the very least an IQ test, and MMPI, and a SIB-r. That would help determine if he has cognitive deficiencies and, if so, in what specific areas, and would help to ascertain his functioning level and if any cognitive issues rose to a level of impacting his ability to participate in activities of daily living. The Calahann site always gives me an error; I'd thought it was removed. I'd love to read more primary sources on this case, though, as I have not had that opportunity.
ETA: an MMPI can expose tendencies toward malingering, and that would likely be helpful information

Does this help? He had a "HIGH" F Value, which points to malingering. From the transcripts:


DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?

WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.

DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?

WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.

DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.

WILKINS: Uh, very high.

DAVIS: Very high?

WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.

DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?

WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.

DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?

WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.

[snip]


DAVIS: Ok. Well, in your report you said that because of that elevation in that T scale—that 83 score, because of that mild elevation that gave you some concern about malingering?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: But you characterized it as a mild elevation.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: When you characterize it as a significant or very high elevation, it gives you more concern for malingering, doesn’t it?

WILKINS: Uh, the T value I used the raw scale value, so no. An 83 gives pause for both malingering and for how valid the scale is for a variety of reasons.

DAVIS: Well you indicated in your report that a mild elevation would give pause, correct?

WILKINS: Any elevation gives pause.

DAVIS: Well a very high elevation would give you, for lack of a better word, a whole lot of pause, Ok?

WILKINS: Yes.

Q. Did you indicate that the responses on the L and K were normal?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay, and then you got the high—very high range on the F scale?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you draw the conclusion from normal scores on the L and K range? You said the validity profiles indicate normal responses.

A. On the L and K.

Q. Right. And then the F has this high range that’s either indicative of malingering or not understanding the questions?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you go on to draw nearly—well—

A. And all I said again is that—is that—is that—us—uh—that we need to—that we need to consider this very carefully because of the high F scale.

Q. And if in fact malingering was what we have on this test, then the validity of the other scores would not be relevant, correct? It would not be a—you would not depend on them?

A. Right. Right.

 

[flourish]

Does this help? He had a "HIGH" F Value, which points to malingering. From the transcripts:


DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?

WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.

DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?

WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.

DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.

WILKINS: Uh, very high.

DAVIS: Very high?

WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.

DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?

WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.

DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?

WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.

[snip]


DAVIS: Ok. Well, in your report you said that because of that elevation in that T scale—that 83 score, because of that mild elevation that gave you some concern about malingering?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: But you characterized it as a mild elevation.

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: When you characterize it as a significant or very high elevation, it gives you more concern for malingering, doesn’t it?

WILKINS: Uh, the T value I used the raw scale value, so no. An 83 gives pause for both malingering and for how valid the scale is for a variety of reasons.

DAVIS: Well you indicated in your report that a mild elevation would give pause, correct?

WILKINS: Any elevation gives pause.

DAVIS: Well a very high elevation would give you, for lack of a better word, a whole lot of pause, Ok?

WILKINS: Yes.

Q. Did you indicate that the responses on the L and K were normal?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay, and then you got the high—very high range on the F scale?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you draw the conclusion from normal scores on the L and K range? You said the validity profiles indicate normal responses.

A. On the L and K.

Q. Right. And then the F has this high range that’s either indicative of malingering or not understanding the questions?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you go on to draw nearly—well—

A. And all I said again is that—is that—is that—us—uh—that we need to—that we need to consider this very carefully because of the high F scale.

Q. And if in fact malingering was what we have on this test, then the validity of the other scores would not be relevant, correct? It would not be a—you would not depend on them?

A. Right. Right.

I appreciate the info, thank you. You do need to provide to link to your source, but I do appreciate reading the information when provided.

 

[LordYAM]

Do you have proof he was? With an IQ of 72 he's "borderline" intelligence. However, his performance IQ had previously tested at 88, and somehow dropped a whopping 12 points when he's told if he scores low enough, he can't be considered for the death penalty. The fact is, his expert conceded there is concern that Jessie was faking his "handicap" for a benefit.

A supporter turned non, who formed a close relationship with Jessie, talked to him frequently said he was not mentally handicapped and said she "wished supporters could have seen his face" when she told him how everyone thinks he's mentally challenged.

Even based on the little snippets you see in PL1, he's NOT retarded. He seems pretty average intelligence for his demographics. Listen to his phone conversation like "THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION!" when his girlfriend asked if he's nervous. Look at how quick he shoots a "Are you crazy!" face at his sister when she says "Damien's a good kid". He interacts with family, friends normal. He reads a card, he can write notes to his family (exclaiming how he got a "bible"), he held a job, took care of himself because of his 'absentee' dad.

The police didn't notice a handicap, his lawyers didn't think he had a handicap. His dad didn't seem so concerned about his son's "disability" when he led cops right to him to get questioned.

Does he have verbal/communication issues? Yes. But he's not retarded enough to keep implicating himself in triple homicide.

If anything, Jessie's "low intelligence" would make him more prone to CONFESS, because lying takes a LOT more mental power if there is feelings of guilt/remorse (which Jessie obviously displayed)

The Jessie is so retarded is another lie supporters need to tell themselves to help them sleep at night.

True Romance had no credility in the slightest and was very much a "woman scorned". And no Jessie was in special eds classes in school and given how reluctant poor states are to do that to save money it's safe to say that Jessie DID have handicaps.

And no Jessie's confessions make no sense. What little he got right was already in the paper and rumor mill, others were very clearly fed to him if you read the transcript (there are numerous instances where they gestured to Jessie several times until he gave them the answer).

Also they asked "do you know what a penis is." I'm sorry you don't ask that to an average kid. You only ask that if the kid has low intelligence at least. So they did suspect he had disabilities. Also Big Jessie is a.) rather disabled himself and b.) failed to realize that leaving a kid along with cops and no lawyer is a bad idea regardless.

Also mental disabilities manifest differently, and the kid WAS in special eds classes. He wasn't just some normal kid.

Again, you have to be an idiot to think they're guilty at this point. Even in West Memphis itself the people support them

 

[LordYAM]

Do you have proof he was? With an IQ of 72 he's "borderline" intelligence. However, his performance IQ had previously tested at 88, and somehow dropped a whopping 12 points when he's told if he scores low enough, he can't be considered for the death penalty. The fact is, his expert conceded there is concern that Jessie was faking his "handicap" for a benefit.

A supporter turned non, who formed a close relationship with Jessie, talked to him frequently said he was not mentally handicapped and said she "wished supporters could have seen his face" when she told him how everyone thinks he's mentally challenged.

Even based on the little snippets you see in PL1, he's NOT retarded. He seems pretty average intelligence for his demographics. Listen to his phone conversation like "THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION!" when his girlfriend asked if he's nervous. Look at how quick he shoots a "Are you crazy!" face at his sister when she says "Damien's a good kid". He interacts with family, friends normal. He reads a card, he can write notes to his family (exclaiming how he got a "bible"), he held a job, took care of himself because of his 'absentee' dad.

The police didn't notice a handicap, his lawyers didn't think he had a handicap. His dad didn't seem so concerned about his son's "disability" when he led cops right to him to get questioned.

Does he have verbal/communication issues? Yes. But he's not retarded enough to keep implicating himself in triple homicide.

If anything, Jessie's "low intelligence" would make him more prone to CONFESS, because lying takes a LOT more mental power if there is feelings of guilt/remorse (which Jessie obviously displayed)

The Jessie is so retarded is another lie supporters need to tell themselves to help them sleep at night.

<modsnip>

1.) Jessie's 88 was several years before and still didn't cover the entire range (it covered some areas). As such it's possible for him to be woefully deficient in others. The deal breaker is the special meds classes and that he was reading at a lower level than kids in his age group.

2.) True Romance was a liar and woman scorned. She later claimed that she was pretending to love him to "get into the mind of a killer" (implying she never believed him innocent.)

3.) Actually he was and the cops knew it. They asked him "do you know what a penis is?" What person asks that question to a 17 year old unless they weren't handicapped. Even the slowest person knows what a penis is. Even leaving aside that Big Jessie is disabled himself letting a minor be alone with a cop is a bad idea regardless of intelligence so Big Jessie's words mean ****. And also they did suspect that Jessie was handicapped.

 

[LordYAM]

I appreciate the info, thank you. You do need to provide to link to your source, but I do appreciate reading the information when provided.

In fairness callahan is down so he can't cite it. The problem is that he ignores that a.) Jessie WAS in special meds classes (which in poorer states they avoid unless they have to) b.) Jessie's 88 was in ONE part of the test (in others he was deficient) and c.) the malingering doesn't change that he was still at a lower reading level and lower functioning.

nons NEED Jessie not to be retarded or disabled. If he was it makes the cops despicable *******s (which they are anyway) and grants credibility to why he confessed and was innocent

 

[Userid]

Arkansas DOC, much like many DOCs, implements an intake or evaluation period for inmates in which eventual facility placement is determined based on the needs of the inmate and general facility statistics such as population and staff at that particular time. It is true that with a pending criminal trial for DE and JB, continued contact with counsel is certainly plausible, but with JM already convicted and serving sentence, the nexus between counsel's advice on JM testifying and counsel's necessity for continued access to JM was destroyed. JM's relationship with counsel was now relegated to "witness", not "defendant". Therefore, DOC's decision and protocol on inmate transfer would easily take precedence over any additional pending criminal proceedings in which JM was not facing charges. I don't disagree that this very well impacted the subsequent conviction of DE and JB, but there just doesn't appear to be strong evidence for the belief that this particular chain of events were the result of some sophisticated legal and psychological strategy on behalf of the prosecution. JM was convicted, sentenced, and entered the correctional system in the same manner as any other inmate. The widely held belief of "causation" here is nothing more than spurious correlation.

Yup, exactly. There's nothing sinister about it.

 

[LordYAM]

Part of it was timing. Jessie had been talked out of giving testimony by Dan on the 8th....and then all of a sudden they move him without telling his attorney. Maybe it was innocent but I can see why people might smell a rat (especially since the wmpd WERE a bunch or corrupt hillbillies)

 

[k-mac]

THE cruelty endured by those 3 darling little boys will sit with me forever.
has touched my heart profoundly and while ever there is breath in me you little angels have justice in my mind as well as far more than the delusional believers will ever comprehend.
for most know the truth.
I know it....u little darlings know it.....and Damien u know it.

Damien, I truly hope you read this forum and comprehend how despised you truly are.
I'm sure the ego ticklers help you sleep at night though.....

btw we are still waiting for your incredible evidence that you promised the believers??????hmm???

 

[Sailor Haumea]

I think they're guilty. Damien made multiple alibi claims that were debunked by other people, falsifying WHEN he called certain people. I think Jessie might have been just an unwilling accomplice, but Damien in particular seems EXTREMELY guilty based on how he outright lied about what he was doing that night.

 

[LordYAM]

I think they're guilty. Damien made multiple alibi claims that were debunked by other people, falsifying WHEN he called certain people. I think Jessie might have been just an unwilling accomplice, but Damien in particular seems EXTREMELY guilty based on how he outright lied about what he was doing that night.

Not really. He was an idiot teenager, but Jessie's alibi DOES hold up.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Talking about alibis, a certain person who "was never a suspect" was in the region of the proposed crime scene, at the proposed time of the crime, yet he "was never a suspect". Would be a strong alibi if the crime took place at a different location, at a different time.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I went to the Callahan site and read Jessie's "after conviction" confession(s). Honestly the conversation between him and DS is laughable. He still gets things wrong and it's clear he's using info learned during the trial to "confess".

I wonder if he thought confessing at that point would help him in some way? I can't figure out why he wanted to "confess" at that point anyway.