How did the 3 teens know/meet the 3 little boys?

[Mrs G Norris]

^ I dunno, if I was facing life behind bars based on a lie or exaggeration I had told I'd be recanting like a &%*#@ not reinforcing it!

 

[Daisy1975]

You know one confession by Misskelley would not have been enough for me either...but 4, that's hard to get past.

I felt this way when I first started studying this case too. It's the fact that his confessions in no way match the evidence in the case that turned me around. From the time of day the crime occurred to how it occurred, very little Jessie said even matches up to the case facts. Surely is he was an active participant, he would have gotten the facts straight. Just knowing the difference between rope to bind the boys and shoe laces would be a start. Or knowing the correct time of day that it happened. It's been awhile since I've read them, but didn't he say in one of his confessions they found the 3 boys earlier in the day? They were clearly in school, so this to me is the first red flag that Jessie is FOS.

 

[Sunnyone]

I really don't think animals would skin a penis like that, or leave deep stab wounds....no way were the wounds caused by animals. In the documentary Paradise Lost 2 they show some of the crime scene pics with the stab wounds and you can see how deep they were, I think the defense will have a very difficult time explaining those wounds away as animal predation.

And weird right? If their argument is that the WM3 didn't do the crime, I don't see their point in arguing against what the state found the wounds to be, or are they just chipping away all all the evidence until there is none left?

Now those three boys were stripped and hog tied, and that's sexual assault in my book, as far as rape itself goes, I hope they weren't but it stands to reason considering how they were found. :furious:

I completely agree, I don't believe it was animal predation. I think this whole theory is smoke and mirrors from the paid defense experts, who can't even agree among themselves. My favorite one is the expert who stated a canine or similar animal took the boys (one by one I'm assuming) and swung them into a hard object (a tree was used as an example) while carrying them with it's mouth. (thereby causing the basilar skull fractures), with this theory you have to believe a canine or similar animal also placed the boys back in the water and submerged them with sticks. You also have to believe that these animals picked just Christopher to de-glove, (excuse the morbidity here) when two other bodies were also available. I think the defense is trying to strip away everything they can, at least in the public eye.

I also agree that with the way the boys were found that it indicates sexual assault. (excuse my crudeness here please) As there have been studies that indicated that tearing is not necessary. Also depending on the size of the perpetrator and whether there was actual penetration is two more factors of whether there would be obvious evidence.

I have to side with the ASSC in regards to the evidence of guilt, since they upheld all the convictions stating there was sufficient evidence of guilt.
I also have to say that to me, one confession might be coerced, but four? Including one that the prosecution was not present, just his own attorney's...Nah.. that is just a little silly to me. (and there are rumors to the fact that there are more than four). Plus you have Damien admitting it to more than one person, Jason admitting it to Michael Carson (who passed two polygraphs on this) and I start to see the whole picture. Add in the blood on the pendant, missing trench coats, no alibi's for any of the three (that can be corroborated), the fibers. For me I don't take each individual piece, I take the whole picture and I see guilt. Now if I was to take each piece and work to tear it apart and just look at that piece, then it might look different but that isn't how it should be done. (at least to me). I would feel the same way if the preponderance of the evidence led to innocence, I would believe they were innocent. In this case to me, that isn't how it is.
What it comes down to me now, is these two things. After 17 years not a single one of the three can provide a valid alibi, nor have they found a single shred of evidence that proves their innocence. With all the high powered attorney's, experts, etc..

 

[ziggy]

What about Damien's assertion that he was talking to people on the phone when the murders occured but his defense attorney at the time didn't bother to bring that into evidence to solidify an alibi for him?

 

[Nova]

I felt this way when I first started studying this case too. It's the fact that his confessions in no way match the evidence in the case that turned me around. From the time of day the crime occurred to how it occurred, very little Jessie said even matches up to the case facts. Surely is he was an active participant, he would have gotten the facts straight. Just knowing the difference between rope to bind the boys and shoe laces would be a start. Or knowing the correct time of day that it happened. It's been awhile since I've read them, but didn't he say in one of his confessions they found the 3 boys earlier in the day? They were clearly in school, so this to me is the first red flag that Jessie is FOS.

Yes, JM originally said they ran into the kids and captured them in the morning (when all three boys were in school). He had to be prompted to place the crime at night when it was dark.

 

[Nova]

^ I dunno, if I was facing life behind bars based on a lie or exaggeration I had told I'd be recanting like a &%*#@ not reinforcing it!

You and I would, I'm sure. But there are indications that JM thought that if he just got the story "right", the police would let him go home to his father.

Even the police thought JM was just a cooperating witness until JM inadvertently implicated himself by saying he brought Michael Moore back when Moore tried to run away.

We aren't talking about master criminals or super-sleuths with any of the players here.

 

[ziggy]

And I'm confused about four confessions - I was only aware of Jesse's confession; which under the law doesn't hold up to a due process challenge.

The knife which they found in the lake near Jason's house was alledged at trial to have made the scraping marks which has been determined to have been made by animals. That knife evidence is so sketchy - you stab with a knife not make little scraping marks.

Also, I don't believe that the mayhem was caused by animals. The stab marks and castration were human caused but no evidence leads to either of the three.

Regardless of guilt or innocense - the trials were not fair and our Constitution gives us the right to a fair trial. I say do over. If there's enough evidence, then the trier of fact will find they are guilty, but when so many mistakes are made and prejudices it's just not justice.

 

[Sunnyone]

What made the trial unfair in legal terms? I've asked this question time and time again and have received a few answers none that were legal reasons that haven't already been addressed by the ASSC.

Let's be honest if there was a legal reason after 17 years and the high powered attorney's hired... it would have resulted in a new trial already.


ziggy:
So far there are three documented confessions by Jessie and one made to his own attorney's, the tape of this confession was played at Jessie's rule 37 hearing. So that is four known confessions.
Since Jessie's first confession wasn't used in Damien and Jason's trial (this has already been ruled on as well by the ASSC, and I have to assume has no merit since they denied) the due process challenge doesn't and didn't come into play.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

By the four confessions I meant four by Jessie, the first statement http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html, his clarifying statement http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html, the confession he made in the police car on his way to prison after his conviction http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html, and the confession he made with his lawyer prior to the Echols / Baldwin trial http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html.

I saw the scraping marks in PL2 on some of the crime scene photos and they looked very uniform to me, as if made by a knife, of course we haven't got those photos to compare to the knife or animal marks to do any proper comparison, but I think it is yet to be determined that the defense's theory about animal predation is correct, but agree absolutely with you that the mayhem was human caused....no two ways about that.

I really doubt that these three will get another trial, I think they will stay where they are, but am also not happy about many aspects of the trial, and a do-over based on science not prejudice could be a good thing if only to lay some myths to bed once and for all, very unlikely this will happen however, and I'm sure the state of Arkansas has better things to spend it's money on than a trial do-over just to satisfy questions which they have no legal requirement to answer.

 

[Sunnyone]

What about Damien's assertion that he was talking to people on the phone when the murders occured but his defense attorney at the time didn't bother to bring that into evidence to solidify an alibi for him?

At Callahan's you will find the statements of the girls he was supposedly talking to, :

This is from Damien's testimony: A: Most of the night I was on the phone.

Q: Do you recall who all you talked to that night?

A: I think so.

Q: Who was that?

A: Holly George, Jennifer Bearden, um, Domini Teer, uh, Heather Cliett, I think that's it.

Q: Did you and Domini have some kind of an argument?

A: I think so.

Q: Were you all - were you all dating quite a bit during this time period?

A: Yes.

Q: How long had you all been dating?

A: I think about a year or a year and a half.

Q: Prior to dating Domini, did you date Deanna Holcomb?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Do you recall what - during how long a time period or when you all broke up? Approximately.

A: I think we were together about nine months. I don't know when that...

Q: Was that the time period before you all moved and went to Oregon?

A: Yes.

Q: And besides talking on the telephone on May the 5th, do you remember leaving the house any more times that evening?

A: No, I did not.

Q: You did not?

A: No.


Sounds good, except when you read the girls statements, they contradict each other, and especially contradict Damien's testimony.

 

[annkitty0630]

What is the "real evidence," in your opinion? I'm seriously asking because I can't find any, other than Misskelly's confession which I believe was coerced and I know wasn't admissible in Baldwin and Echol's trials.

(BTW, I intend no sarcasm by putting "real evidence" in quotes. I was just acknowledging the terminology you used.)

JMOO, there is no real evidence in this case for a conviction to stand. Since the Arkansas courts and law enforcement do not want to ever admit railroad justice by rushing to conclusions and judgments before looking at all scenarios and parties involved, they should just retry the case and let it finally be done. I would sincerely hope that the public (jury of your peers) is not still not in the same mind frame and can be open minded as well as separate fact from fiction. THIS AGAIN IS JUST SOLEY MY OPINION!! Ann :banghead::innocent:

 

[nephers]

What made the trial unfair in legal terms? I've asked this question time and time again and have received a few answers none that were legal reasons that haven't already been addressed by the ASSC.

Respectfully snipped....

The biggest thing, for me, is the Misskelley confession being a deciding factor in the Echols/Baldwin trials....I am well aware that has been ruled on but I can't get over that. To me, there was clear jury misconduct and that warrants a new trial.

To be honest, I am still firmly on the fence as to their guilt, but I think the trials were a joke in many ways. I don't think the knife should have been allowed at trial. It was never proven to belong to any of the three. The prosecution "expert" should never have been allowed to testify as an "expert". Which brings up the point that I do not believe any sort of satanic discussion would have been allowed. Basically, I think the judge allowed things into evidence that shouldn't have been. Yes, I know it has been ruled on in appeal but correct me I if am wrong, wasn't the original judge the one who ruled on that appeal? I know it happens that the original judge be involved in the appeal process but I think if the judge is in question, he shouldn't be involved in that process. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Sunnyone]

Respectfully snipped....

The biggest thing, for me, is the Misskelley confession being a deciding factor in the Echols/Baldwin trials....I am well aware that has been ruled on but I can't get over that. To me, there was clear jury misconduct and that warrants a new trial.

To be honest, I am still firmly on the fence as to their guilt, but I think the trials were a joke in many ways. I don't think the knife should have been allowed at trial. It was never proven to belong to any of the three. The prosecution "expert" should never have been allowed to testify as an "expert". Which brings up the point that I do not believe any sort of satanic discussion would have been allowed. Basically, I think the judge allowed things into evidence that shouldn't have been. Yes, I know it has been ruled on in appeal but correct me I if am wrong, wasn't the original judge the one who ruled on that appeal? I know it happens that the original judge be involved in the appeal process but I think if the judge is in question, he shouldn't be involved in that process. I hope that makes sense.

It does make sense, however who ruled on it was the ASSC not the circuit court judge. Therefore to me, the misconduct could not have had merit. The statement that alludes to the jury misconduct is still under seal, so no one knows except those personally involved what that statement says. So I have to assume that the ASSC after having read the statement found it lacking.

To me after reading the transcripts of the trial, I found Judge Burnett to favor or at least rule on the side of the defense more often than the prosecution. As for the knife being introduced it might not have been allowed if the defense had objected, unfortunately they did not. The judge didn't allow the luminol test results, even after the defense kept asking witness about no blood being found at the scene. Finally Judge Burnett admonished the defense, stating if they kept it up he would then allow the luminol results. It's one of those statements some supporters still say, even though it is incorrect. Although Judge Burnett would have allowed the pendant of Damien's that had Damien's blood and either Jason or Stevie Branch's blood on it, it would have caused a mistrial, therefore the prosecution decided not to introduce it. As for the prosecution expert, the defense had every opportunity to discredit him.

All this being said, none of it qualifies as making the trial unfair. Or it would have been caught by the ASSC, unless as some supporters believe the ASSC is in on the conspiracy to keep these three in prison just to save face.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^ thank you for clarifying that and in particular the luminol results....I could never understand why it was being continually mentioned that there was no blood found at the scene after viewing the luminol photographs from the police evidence files....now that makes perfect sense.

 

[nephers]

Thanks for clearing it up on who made the appeal rulings. I have been reading a lot about this case and I figured I had some of the details mixed up. I suppose you are right in thinking the evidence of juror misconduct couldn't have been that substantial if it didn't lead to a new trial.

As for the luminol results and the pendant, I need to reread about them. I started getting interested in this case about a month ago, have read lots, but have failed to take notes other then noting which websites had which info. I also, admittedly, haven't read all of the trial transcripts. I've read snippets to find out about a specific thing, but not the entire thing.

With all that I've read, I'm starting to doubt my original thought they are innocent, which is why I'm stuck on the fence. I started reading with an open mind and I'm happy I am doing so. I'm still not sure if I want to see a new trial based on facts or based on my initial media driven thoughts of innocence. And, I know I would like to see a new trial to see if the end result would be the same. I know, not a good enough reason.

Sorry, I'm way off topic with my ramblings. I'm off to go watch Paradise lost. I know it's biased but I want to see it to see interviews with the 3 from when they were younger. I recently saw an interview of Echols that didn't sit right with me.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^ I have to say that like you I started off having only seen PL1 + 2 thinking there may have been a miscarriage of justice in this case, but the thing that made me start researching deeper were interviews I saw of Echols which didn't sit right with me either. After doing so I firmly believe the right people are behind bars, and that Misskelley's fourth confession is the closest we will get to the truth.

 

[Nova]

What made the trial unfair in legal terms? I've asked this question time and time again and have received a few answers none that were legal reasons that haven't already been addressed by the ASSC.

Let's be honest if there was a legal reason after 17 years and the high powered attorney's hired... it would have resulted in a new trial already.


ziggy:
So far there are three documented confessions by Jessie and one made to his own attorney's, the tape of this confession was played at Jessie's rule 37 hearing. So that is four known confessions.
Since Jessie's first confession wasn't used in Damien and Jason's trial (this has already been ruled on as well by the ASSC, and I have to assume has no merit since they denied) the due process challenge doesn't and didn't come into play.

You have far more confidence in the Arkansas legal system than anyone I know, including residents of Arkansas who regularly post here.

Ask Tezi about how things work in Arkansas. She lives there.

 

[Nova]

It does make sense, however who ruled on it was the ASSC not the circuit court judge. Therefore to me, the misconduct could not have had merit. The statement that alludes to the jury misconduct is still under seal, so no one knows except those personally involved what that statement says. So I have to assume that the ASSC after having read the statement found it lacking....

We'd all like to think the legal system can be trusted, particularly at the supreme court level.

But friends who work in the system (in Cal. not Ark.) tell me that despite what we see in the movies, in real life, appeals courts are VERY reluctant to overturn jury verdicts, even in cases where the misconduct is egregious.

To do so calls the entire system into question and nobody wants to do that.

That isn't proof the misconduct here rose to the level of invalidating the trial, but neither does the ASSC ruling prove it did not.

Unfortunately, we have to research the matter and make up our own minds, or simply accept that we don't know.

 

[laurensmom]

Well I can say for certain that there are other things just like the WM3 that happen in Arkansas and seriously make you doubt our system.....read about the boys on the tracks which involved many many police/attorneys/etc.

In rereading the transcripts-I feel they were gonna be found guilty from the get go thanks to Det. Ridge who when answering a question on the stand mentioned Jessie's confession....while testifying in Damien and Jason's trial. This was not supposed to be mentioned at all-yet it was and was allowed after much argument from the defense.

 

[Sunnyone]

We'd all like to think the legal system can be trusted, particularly at the supreme court level.

But friends who work in the system (in Cal. not Ark.) tell me that despite what we see in the movies, in real life, appeals courts are VERY reluctant to overturn jury verdicts, even in cases where the misconduct is egregious.

To do so calls the entire system into question and nobody wants to do that.

That isn't proof the misconduct here rose to the level of invalidating the trial, but neither does the ASSC ruling prove it did not.

Unfortunately, we have to research the matter and make up our own minds, or simply accept that we don't know.

I haven't just blindly accepted the ASSC ruling on this, however with the actual affidavit under seal no one can research it to the level the ASSC has. I have read what the defense has thrown out in the media, what was in the writ, but I've also read the statements from the jury foreman where he denies this allegation. I've also read time and time again how the defense throws out misinformation to garner support for this, and I have to ask myself why would they need to do that if the truth is on their side? For me it's looking at the big picture and using common sense.