It's a very simple question.

[Nova]

False cofessions certainly exist, but in every documented case I can find, they have been later recanted. JM has never stated that he was not involved, even maintaining his own guilt after conviction. I don't understand how his low IQ is apparently the cause of his "coerced confession" and yet supporters refuse to believe that his low IQ could also be an explanation for the few discrepancies that are present in his multiple cofessions. For a mentally challenged man, he sure got most of the facts right.

JM effectively recanted when he plead not guilty and refused to testify against his alleged co-perpetrators.

I'm not sure JM got "most" of the facts right, at least not without considerable help from his interrogators. But in the end, it isn't really a question of quantity, but of quality. Whichever figure one accepts for JM's i.q., he knows day from night. As for what he allegedly got "right," despite WMPD testimony to the contrary, there are plenty of reports that the details of the ongoing investigation were widely discussed in the small town. It's hard to say what JM may have heard via gossip.

What "I don't understand" is how people are willing to accept the parts of a confession that support guilt, but simply ignore the parts that indicate the suspect is coughing up fiction. Obviously self-serving statements are one thing (and quite common: "I was there but so-and-so was the mastermind"), but being off on the time of the crime by 12 hours is pretty major in my book.

 

[Nova]

ITA, if he worked those confessions to fit with the facts as led by LE then he's an idiot savant, much too complex a story, and too many corroborating facts. Perhaps it was stupid of him to confess, I'm sure his co-convincted would have preferred he had kept his mouth shut, but since they were also blurting out confessions to their peers I doubt this one would have been kept quiet for long anyway.

He hasn't proclaimed innocence because he's not, and even though he was involved in this horrific murder, at least he had enough decency to admit it, and show some contrition.

I don't see the logic in much of this.

JM plead not guilty and refused to testify against Damien and Baldwin. In doing so, he recanted the confession.

He has just as much to gain from "proclaiming his innocence" whether the proclamation is true or false. If he isn't chatting with the media every hour, it's because his lawyer finally convinced him it is dangerous to do so.

When you or any one says JM got so many facts "right," what is really meant is that he said a number of things the prosecution claimed it could corroborate. But whether the WMPD and prosecution had those "facts" correct themselves is itself a matter of contention.

But if you look at any case where a confession has been prompted by the interrogators, the number of confirming details will be great. That's how the process works.

 

[Nova]

I go back and forth with this case, BUT here's what I don't get......... IF they are Innocent like everyone claims then why are they still in prison 17 years later and why does EVERY appeal get turned down?....

To paraphrase one of the greatest American movies ever made:

"Forget it, Jake. It's Arkansas."

 

[Dirty larry]

JM effectively recanted when he plead not guilty and refused to testify against his alleged co-perpetrators.

No, he didn't.

He plead not guilty to murder, but he never confessed to killing anyone in the first place.

I'm not sure JM got "most" of the facts right

But he did.

at least not without considerable help from his interrogators.

So you keep saying?

Yet several times now you have been invited to share with us how you are able to differentiate which questions were "feeding him information", and which were just confirming what he had already told them prior to the tape recording.

But in the end, it isn't really a question of quantity, but of quality.

No,... that's simply a deflection used by those who can't offer any rational explaination for why an innocent Misskelley would continue to confess to his own attorneys in private.

Whichever figure one accepts for JM's i.q., he knows day from night.

There really isn't any debate on which of the figures were accurate, though I'm certainly not surprised that you would refuse to acknowledge this.

As for what he allegedly got "right," despite WMPD testimony to the contrary, there are plenty of reports that the details of the ongoing investigation were widely discussed in the small town.

Once again you seem to be short on examples?

This seems to be a habit of yours?

Yet, you seem to always demand that others provide documentation?

It's hard to say what JM may have heard via gossip.

Yet here you are, telling us what he heard.

What "I don't understand" is how people are willing to accept the parts of a confession that support guilt, but simply ignore the parts that indicate the suspect is coughing up fiction.

Because there are no parts which indicate he was coughing up fiction.

As testified, there are two possible explainations for the inconsistencies in Misskelley's initial statement.

One, it was fabricated.

Two, He was trying to lessen his own involvement.

Since he admitted he deliberately lied about the time and the rope, and since he went on to confess again and again and again - choosing to believe he fabricated it is pretty ridiculous.

but being off on the time of the crime by 12 hours is pretty major in my book.

Except as is the case with most supporters, the only way you can make your "argument" is by embellishing - as you just did again.

Being off by 12 hours would mean Misskelley at some point claimed the murders took place prior to 8am.

Problem is, Misskelley consistently maintained the murders took place that night - and despite Ofshe's stupidity, he was the first to say so.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I don't see the logic in much of this.

JM plead not guilty and refused to testify against Damien and Baldwin. In doing so, he recanted the confession.

He has just as much to gain from "proclaiming his innocence" whether the proclamation is true or false. If he isn't chatting with the media every hour, it's because his lawyer finally convinced him it is dangerous to do so.

When you or any one says JM got so many facts "right," what is really meant is that he said a number of things the prosecution claimed it could corroborate. But whether the WMPD and prosecution had those "facts" correct themselves is itself a matter of contention.

But if you look at any case where a confession has been prompted by the interrogators, the number of confirming details will be great. That's how the process works.

Well I don't think deciding to plea 'not guilty' is recanting, especially considering he went on to confess two more times after the trial (which trumped any appearance of a claim of innocence by pleading not guilty), what he decided to do was fight the charges, and later not to testify in the trial of his co-accused, recanting would be a statement, followed by an explanation.

And yes, he made a number of statements in his confession which fit with the evidence gathered from the crime scene.

I have no issue with him not speaking to the media, but we were asked has he ever said he was not there, and not a participant in the crime, and the answer has to be from our discussion here, that he has not.

 

[ziggy]

Yet several times now you have been invited to share with us how you are able to differentiate which questions were "feeding him information", and which were just confirming what he had already told them prior to the tape recording.

Or more like reminding him of what THEY told HIM prior to the tape recording. It goes both ways.

 

[Sunnyone]

That theory might work for the first confession, but what about the other four? Especially the one with just his own attorney's present?


There is also this:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/micjo.html

October 24, 94

Mr. Brent Davis,
I am forwarding this letter to your office simply because you were the only prosecuting attorney that I was able to get the address of. After reading this, I hope you will bring it to the attention of the appropiate persons.
I may have some useful information for the prosecution in the upcoming appeal of Jessie Misskelley. Who, as you may know is one of three defendants accused of murdering the three young boys in West Memphis.
I have known Misskelley since June 9th, 1994. We are currently housed together in the A.D.C. Diagnostic Unit, Special Programs Unit.
At several different occasions, Misskelley and I have talked extensively about many facts of the case. Among them, Misskelley told me that they, the defendants, cut the testicales of one of the children off. That Jason Baldwin, one of the defendants, had sex with one of the children after he had been killed. And that Damien Echols, one of the defendants, said a prayer before they threw the boys in a ditch.
Misskelley, also told me that they, the defendants, left a night gown at the scene so that it would look like women had committed the crime. He says now that he is trying to blame the parents of one of the children.
Misskelley also told me that his confession is the only evidence that the prosecution has. And that he and his attorney are trying to have that dismissed.
I once asked Misskelley what were the names of the three boys. He laughed for some time, and then said he could only remember one of them.
Mr. Davis, please do everything in your power to keep Misskelley behind bars for the rest of his life. He is a very cold, morbid person.
I thank you for your time
Michael Johnson

 

[Dirty larry]

Or more like reminding him of what THEY told HIM prior to the tape recording. It goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

You see, much to your chagrin, everyone present - including Misskelley - denied under oath what you insist took place.

So unless you believe the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to law enforcement,... it doesn't go both ways.

Especially the one with just his own attorney's present?

They don't seem comfortable talking about that one?

 

[aussiesleuth]

Jessie continued to confess, even to his own attorney because, in his words, he wanted something done. He was feeling remorse, hence the multiple confessions. His confessions were not presented at the Echols/Baldwin trial because he had been advised not to testify and could therefore not be cross examined regarding his admissions. Were a retrial to take place, I believe he would probably confess again.

 

[Nova]

That theory might work for the first confession, but what about the other four? Especially the one with just his own attorney's present?


There is also this:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/micjo.html

October 24, 94

Mr. Brent Davis,
I am forwarding this letter to your office simply because you were the only prosecuting attorney that I was able to get the address of. After reading this, I hope you will bring it to the attention of the appropiate persons.
I may have some useful information for the prosecution in the upcoming appeal of Jessie Misskelley. Who, as you may know is one of three defendants accused of murdering the three young boys in West Memphis.
I have known Misskelley since June 9th, 1994. We are currently housed together in the A.D.C. Diagnostic Unit, Special Programs Unit.
At several different occasions, Misskelley and I have talked extensively about many facts of the case. Among them, Misskelley told me that they, the defendants, cut the testicales of one of the children off. That Jason Baldwin, one of the defendants, had sex with one of the children after he had been killed. And that Damien Echols, one of the defendants, said a prayer before they threw the boys in a ditch.
Misskelley, also told me that they, the defendants, left a night gown at the scene so that it would look like women had committed the crime. He says now that he is trying to blame the parents of one of the children.
Misskelley also told me that his confession is the only evidence that the prosecution has. And that he and his attorney are trying to have that dismissed.
I once asked Misskelley what were the names of the three boys. He laughed for some time, and then said he could only remember one of them.
Mr. Davis, please do everything in your power to keep Misskelley behind bars for the rest of his life. He is a very cold, morbid person.
I thank you for your time
Michael Johnson

I assume you know the purpose of this sort of "jailhouse snitch." Mr. Johnson is hoping to gain some advantage (early release, better treatment in prison, etc.) in return for claiming Misskelley confessed to him. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an accused or convicted murderer who does not have this sort of "evidence" against him.

On the other hand, if you choose to believe Mr. Johnson, then you have to conclude Misskelley is indeed mentally impaired to an extreme degree if he can't remember the names of the victims at this point.

 

[Nova]

Jessie continued to confess, even to his own attorney because, in his words, he wanted something done. He was feeling remorse, hence the multiple confessions. His confessions were not presented at the Echols/Baldwin trial because he had been advised not to testify and could therefore not be cross examined regarding his admissions. Were a retrial to take place, I believe he would probably confess again.

And how do we know this? Is there any independent corroboration of these many confessions that doesn't come from LE? (I'm seriously asking, because over the years I've lost track of everything JM is claimed to have said.)

 

[Nova]

No, it doesn't.

You see, much to your chagrin, everyone present - including Misskelley - denied under oath what you insist took place.

So unless you believe the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to law enforcement,... it doesn't go both ways.

They don't seem comfortable talking about that one?

Of course, the legal presumption of innocence applies to LE. But presumption of innocence applies to the government. It doesn't mean one has to believe they are telling the truth.

Hell, even jury instructions say that much and instruct each juror to draw his/her own conclusion as to the credibility of all witness testimony, including that of LE.

 

[aussiesleuth]

I assume you know the purpose of this sort of "jailhouse snitch." Mr. Johnson is hoping to gain some advantage (early release, better treatment in prison, etc.) in return for claiming Misskelley confessed to him. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an accused or convicted murderer who does not have this sort of "evidence" against him.

On the other hand, if you choose to believe Mr. Johnson, then you have to conclude Misskelley is indeed mentally impaired to an extreme degree if he can't remember the names of the victims at this point.

Or perhaps it's just not that important to him?
The problem with believing in the innocence of these three is the staggering amount of things that you have to disregard, and trying to find believable reasons to disregard them.

 

[Nova]

Or perhaps it's just not that important to him?
The problem with believing in the innocence of these three is the staggering amount of things that you have to disregard, and trying to find believable reasons to disregard them.

But so much of what one has to disregard, as you put it, comes from the same sources the WMPD and local prosecutor's office. The corruption of those agencies is rather well documented.

And by the same token, there is so much evidence missing (more or less any and all physical evidence) that one has to pretend is unimportant.

And there was so much investigation never done (be it "Bojangles" or the parents of the victims) that one must overlook to get beyond reasonable doubt.

Finally, one has to believe these three teenagers, one of whom was barely known by the others, only one of whom ("Baldwin") could by any stretch of the imagination be described as functional (whether one blames mental handicap or emotional disturbance), somehow spontaneously decided to commit this heinous, brutal and bloody crime, and yet somehow pulled it off without leaving any evidence. For if you believe LE, this was the "perfect crime" until the defendants began running their mouths.

 

[aussiesleuth]

But so much of what one has to disregard, as you put it, comes from the same sources the WMPD and local prosecutor's office. The corruption of those agencies is rather well documented.

And by the same token, there is so much evidence missing (more or less any and all physical evidence) that one has to pretend is unimportant.

And there was so much investigation never done (be it "Bojangles" or the parents of the victims) that one must overlook to get beyond reasonable doubt.

Finally, one has to believe these three teenagers, one of whom was barely known by the others, only one of whom ("Baldwin") could by any stretch of the imagination be described as functional (whether one blames mental handicap or emotional disturbance), somehow spontaneously decided to commit this heinous, brutal and bloody crime, and yet somehow pulled it off without leaving any evidence. For if you believe LE, this was the "perfect crime" until the defendants began running their mouths.

The investigation was halted by one of these boys confessing to the crime, so there wasn't a huge need to continue looking for other suspects. Damien likes to contend that he hardly knew Misskelly, however his exgirlfriend Deanna, names Misskelly as one of his close friends, so once again, we have to disregard the testimony of someone who actually knew these boys in order to convince ourselves of their innocence. The fact that the bodies were submerged in water makes the lack of physical evidence quite feasible, and Damien had given more than ample warnings via his bizarre writings and violent behaviour that he was homicidal and deluded.

 

[aussiesleuth]

Just wanted to add, this murder was far from spontaneous. Damien's psych history is full of examples of his capability to murder.
He stated that he hates the human race.
That when he feels rage, the only solution is to hurt someone.
He threatened to eat his father and admitted he should be locked because he was going to hurt someone.
His parents said they were frightened of him.
One of his hospitalisations was due to his constant thoughts of killing others or himself.
He told his doctor he was a sociopath.
He also wrote this little gem, amongst other disturbing missives

"No more. Everyone will pay because everyone is too stupid to open their eyes.This is the final times, and I am the new messiah. Wake up and smell the crud, , I don't care whether you are saved or not. Everyone pays the price."

 

[Dirty larry]

Of course, the legal presumption of innocence applies to LE. But presumption of innocence applies to the government. It doesn't mean one has to believe they are telling the truth.

No, it just means that one needs a little more to refute them, than a desperate need to believe they are lying.

Finally, one has to believe these three teenagers, one of whom was barely known by the others

You are again incorrect.

Baldwin and Misskelley had known each other for years.

Not to mention the fact that witness after witness reported seeing them together fairly regularly.

Like Charles Ashley, Ricky Climber, Robert Burch, and others.

only one of whom ("Baldwin") could by any stretch of the imagination be described as functional

See?

This is why supporters aren't generally taken very seriously.

 

[laurensmom]

No, it just means that one needs a little more to refute them, than a desperate need to believe they are lying.

You are again incorrect.

Baldwin and Misskelley had known each other for years.

Not to mention the fact that witness after witness reported seeing them together fairly regularly.

Like Charles Ashley, Ricky Climber, Robert Burch, and others.

See?

This is why supporters aren't generally taken very seriously.

I'm still reading everything I can find once again. And it helps that I can come here and read the different ideas being bounced around. Noone can argue that you know quite a bit about this case, however, your last sentence above and actually just about every single reply of yours is so nasty. It's hard to take anything you say and actually absorb it because of all the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" on every.single.post

 

[aussiesleuth]

Yep, this case seems to bring out the aggression in people on both sides of the fence. I think it's partly because alot of supporters seem to take the easy way out instead of researching for themselves [not meaning you], and just allow the support movement's propaganda to dictate their opinion. It's partly the reason that I now believe in their guilt. It makes you wonder why they have to tell lies and embellish things in order to shape your opinion, and yet they keep trotting out the same old half truths and mistruths constantly, so I guess those that are convinced of their guilt get a little exasperated with debating the same points over and over again.

 

[Nova]

The investigation was halted by one of these boys confessing to the crime, so there wasn't a huge need to continue looking for other suspects. Damien likes to contend that he hardly knew Misskelly, however his exgirlfriend Deanna, names Misskelly as one of his close friends, so once again, we have to disregard the testimony of someone who actually knew these boys in order to convince ourselves of their innocence. The fact that the bodies were submerged in water makes the lack of physical evidence quite feasible, and Damien had given more than ample warnings via his bizarre writings and violent behaviour that he was homicidal and deluded.

And we're back to "Damien was weird" so he must have done it.

As for lack of forensic evidence, even assuming (big assumption, but OK for now) the bodies were washed clean in the ditch water, they certainly weren't assaulted, castrated, etc., under water. Where is that evidence?

Now back to that assumption, somehow forensic evidence that does NOT point to the defendants survived (albeit not a large amount), so we also have to assume the water somehow selectively washed away only the evidence that pointed to the defendants' guilt.

JM didn't confess the day the bodies were found. IIRC, several weeks to a month passed. There was plenty of time to pursue other suspects had the WMPD been so inclined. And evidence such as that left by "Bojangles" needed to be collected immediately.

As for Deanna, I have no reason to believe she lied. But there was so much confusion and pressure on various witnesses, I don't know whether to take her word or not. There doesn't seem to be much independent evidence of prior connection between JM and the others; JM's own friend testified he asked to be introduced to JB and DE after rumors started circulating that they were involved in the murder.