It's a very simple question.

[Nova]

Not odd - Nova is correct there were crashes and I used to follow the JonBenet case as a paid registered user on another site and only was a lurker here and that had to be in 1999 because I still lived in Nashville. I'm pretty sure I joined in 2001 because I remember discussing Danielle Van Dam and being on the computer in my Nashville apartment when 911 happened (but if I am incorrect, of course, I'm a horrible awful person and a liar).

Isn't it odd that we are having to defend these dates? As if we have anything to gain from lying about them!

What's particularly odd is that my original estimate (now proven to be most likely incorrect) of the start date was merely offered as an admission that I DON'T know everything about this case, that it has been discussed from time to time, but my recall of all the details isn't fresh.

It's not as if I invented a phony start date as proof of my "authority" on this subject. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Roxye]

I was pretty sure Nova was right. I know that the first time I joined was somewhere in the late 90's or very early in 2000. I had to rejoin in 2005, but I had drifted away for a bit and just thought they purged users when they weren't active for a very long time.

 

[Nova]

A poster who says s/he doesn't want to wade into the crossfire here PMed me that she is reasonably certain Websleuths was started in 1997.

If so, and I think s/he's right, I joined in 1998, about the time one of the original owners broke away and founded the rival site, WeBBsleuths.

So I should have said 12 years, not 15.

Not that it changes the point I was making in any way, but I shall carry the shame of this error to my grave.

***

In case readers would like to avoid having to wade back through this silly argument about WS origins, my original statement was something to this effect: some of us have been discussing this case off and on for many years here. Emphasis on "off and on."

We've gone on to other cases and our memories (that is, my memory) of the WM3 case details may not always be accurate. We (that is, I) will be happy to be corrected, but considering the number of cases discussed here, errors of memory are not evidence that we are idiots or liars.

 

[costalpilot]

To paraphrase one of the greatest American movies ever made:

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

i'm not impressed with sectional bias and stereotyping. There are small town people in small towns all over America.


I live in Oregon and have a home in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. people are people. Everywhere.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One of the things that has often ticked me off about this case is the tendency of so many people to blame the South, at least in part, for the miscarriage of justice. As you said, this type of justice is small-town, not Southern. I could point out many examples, but one will suffice. Ever hear of Salem, MA? Last time I checked, that's not in the South. It's one of my pet peeves, as a Southerner, to see the South maligned. No region of the country, or even the world, is immune to this type of police ineptness. Just my opinion.

 

[Nova]

i'm not impressed with sectional bias and stereotyping. There are small town people in small towns all over America.


I live in Oregon and have a home in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. people are people. Everywhere.

Oh, good grief! I wasn't talking about Arkansans in general. If you know the movie to which I referred, Chinatown, the reference to the title district has nothing to do with Chinese-Americans (there are none in the film), it has to do with official incompetence and corruption. (And while we're on the subject, I lived most of my adult life in Los Angeles, the town where the movie is set and one rather famous for real-life police corruption.)

As for my reference to Arkansas here, I was referring to details such as the history of corruption among the WMPD, a part-time state coroner who was a dentist by trade, a "cult expert" with a Ph.D. from a mail-order college, etc. and so forth.

And these details pale in comparison to what has been shared here by Arkansans themselves in terms of problems with LE having nothing to do with this case.

So please apologize to your neighbors for me. I was not referring to them.

 

[Nova]

One of the things that has often ticked me off about this case is the tendency of so many people to blame the South, at least in part, for the miscarriage of justice. As you said, this type of justice is small-town, not Southern. I could point out many examples, but one will suffice. Ever hear of Salem, MA? Last time I checked, that's not in the South. It's one of my pet peeves, as a Southerner, to see the South maligned. No region of the country, or even the world, is immune to this type of police ineptness. Just my opinion.

And not just small towns (though the inexperience of some of the investigators in this case may be blamed on that).

As I said in my post above, Los Angeles is quite famous for its corruption scandals. You may add Chicago and New York to the list.

Now ya'll need to run out and rent Chinatown. Not to understand my point (and not because it has anything to do with the WM3), but because it's just that great a film!

(ETA: but since you mention it, I was raised in Florida myself and the South did its best to appear backward and provincial during a century of fighting federal civil rights laws and every other form of social progress. Of course, today's South isn't the 1950's South, thanks to changes by Southerners themselves and decades of migrations from other parts of the country.)

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Nova,

I am a film buff, and I loved Chinatown ("She's my sister and my daughter!"). I was not really talking about you, but responding in general to coastalpilot's post. It's just one of my pet peeves when people want to dismiss this case as just another case of "Southern justice." I just wanted to point out that, as you said, miscarriage of justice is not a Southern phenomenon. True, we Southerners often bring a lot of the condemnation on ourselves by our stubbornness as you pointed out with the civil rights legislation. We don't change very quickly, but that could be said of other areas of the country (or the world) as well. Sorry if you were offended. It's just one of my pet peeves when people blame the South for this kind of thing without realizing that it's not the region but the small-mindedness that's at fault here.

 

[Nova]

Nova,

I am a film buff, and I loved Chinatown ("She's my sister and my daughter!"). I was not really talking about you, but responding in general to coastalpilot's post. It's just one of my pet peeves when people want to dismiss this case as just another case of "Southern justice." I just wanted to point out that, as you said, miscarriage of justice is not a Southern phenomenon. True, we Southerners often bring a lot of the condemnation on ourselves by our stubbornness as you pointed out with the civil rights legislation. We don't change very quickly, but that could be said of other areas of the country (or the world) as well. Sorry if you were offended. It's just one of my pet peeves when people blame the South for this kind of thing without realizing that it's not the region but the small-mindedness that's at fault here.

I'm sorry, I wasn't in the least offended (by you or anyone else) and I wish I hadn't given that impression.

The truth is I'm one of the worst offenders in joking about Southern stereotypes; and, at the same time, I think of myself as essentially a Southerner. I know, I know, Florida doesn't count to folks in Alabama and Mississippi, but I have vivid memories of segregation, "colored" water fountains and all, and the fight to end it. (Most of Florida was not and is not the Fountainbleau Hotel!) And I was educated by Southern teachers; we read Faulkner and O'Connor rather than Steinbeck and Cather.

I'll admit I've had my moments with this case when I've thought, "Figures: Arkansas!" But the truth is I know perfectly well there are equal miscarriages of justice in every state, in cities large and small.

Maybe you can explain this to me. I think what bothers a lot of us is that for 16 years, every appeal has led to the case being sent back to Burnett to rule on his own conduct. Is this an Arkansas thing? Or would this happen in other states as well?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

That's always bothered me as well. I'm not sure, but I think it's a small-town thing. Burnett might have been the only judge on the Second Circuit bench. I'm not sure, but I think that may have been the problem. It could also be that the judges in AR are elected and therefore their decisions always have political overtones. What bothered me was the times (I'm not sure how many but at least at each Rule 37 appeal) that the ASSC upheld Burnett's decision. However, I recently learned that appellate courts are loathe to overturn jury verdicts, so that might come into play here as well. I guess that's why we have a Federal Supreme Court which will not have the ties to the voting public that state jurists do. At least, due to the new DNA law in AR, this case is now getting an evidentiary hearing. I wish I could give you a more definitive answer about why Burnett kept deciding if his own decisions were right or not, but I can't. Maybe a lawyer or someone with more legal training than me (which would be anyone with any legal training as I have none) can weigh in on this.

 

[Nova]

That's always bothered me as well. I'm not sure, but I think it's a small-town thing. Burnett might have been the only judge on the Second Circuit bench. I'm not sure, but I think that may have been the problem. It could also be that the judges in AR are elected and therefore their decisions always have political overtones. What bothered me was the times (I'm not sure how many but at least at each Rule 37 appeal) that the ASSC upheld Burnett's decision. However, I recently learned that appellate courts are loathe to overturn jury verdicts, so that might come into play here as well. I guess that's why we have a Federal Supreme Court which will not have the ties to the voting public that state jurists do. At least, due to the new DNA law in AR, this case is now getting an evidentiary hearing. I wish I could give you a more definitive answer about why Burnett kept deciding if his own decisions were right or not, but I can't. Maybe a lawyer or someone with more legal training than me (which would be anyone with any legal training as I have none) can weigh in on this.

CR, I have a close friend who is an appellate attorney. She will tell you it is like carrying water in a sieve to get an appeals court to overturn a jury verdict. Admitting juries make mistakes calls the whole system into question and nobody wants to do that. (And this is in California, not Arkansas.) My friend works for the state Public Defenders Office, juvenile division. They only appeal in the most egregious cases and even so, if they win a reversal on one case in 20, they break out the champagne!

Personally, I am vehemently opposed to electing judges (or subjecting them to recall votes, as we do here in CA). Of course there should be procedures for impeaching judges for misconduct, but otherwise they should be the bulwark against mob hysteria, not out gladhanding for votes.

(ETA the above is why an evidentiary hearing may be Echols' salvation. If the court rules evidence wasn't shown to the jury or improper evidence was shown to the jury, then a new trial can be ordered without implying the original jury made a mistake.)

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree that electing judges is wrong. It makes judges "political animals" when they should just be seeking justice. And I agree that this evidentiary hearing is a good thing. I just wish it would happen soon. However, I want it done right. So, if we have to wait a while for a thoroughly-prepared defense, we just have to wait. It's getting harder, though.

 

[Just_Pietzche]

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.

Jessie said he wanted "something done about it." It doesn't mean he has remorse anymore than it means he wants something done about his sentence. Whether or not Judge Burnett was able to reduce his sentence, Jessie, the prosecutors, and the media were all seemingly under the impression that his sentence could, in fact, be reduced.

 

[Just_Pietzche]

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.

What are the "staggering amount of things that you have to disregard"? There is no physical evidence linking them to the crime. All you've got are some inconsistent and uncorroborated confessions from Jessie Misskelley and some second-hand confessions from witnesses who have recanted, are inconsistent, or (in the case of the softball girls) were from an eavesdropped conversation taken out of context. Naturally, all the things you will find when so much of the detective's attention is focused on one person with a bias to confirm their guilt -- especially when you have to pursue witnesses to corroborate your theory because evidence is non-existent. They started the rumors that they followed up on, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Jessie said he wanted "something done about it." It doesn't mean he has remorse anymore than it means he wants something done about his sentence. Whether or not Judge Burnett was able to reduce his sentence, Jessie, the prosecutors, and the media were all seemingly under the impression that his sentence could, in fact, be reduced.

As I've stated before, Jessie's mental incapacity colors whatever he says. His idea of "something done about it" probably referred to something affecting him personally, like his sentence as you said. It is very typical of someone of his mental incapacity to try his best to cooperate with authority figures. For some reason (I have a theory, but it's only that - a theory), he didn't trust his attorneys when he made his last "confession," although they we directing him to remain silent. Confessing against the advice of your attorney is not very smart, right? Instead of this action showing remorse and/or guilt, it could also just be another indication of his mental incapacity.

 

[Nova]

I do not recall where I read this, so it should be regarded as mere speculation, but I seem to recall that JM's lawyers believed he had been advised by his jailers not to trust them. The "Stockholm Syndrome" incident should tell us something about how people tend to identify with their captors; that was essentially JM's position at the time of his confessions.

 

[Just_Pietzche]

I do not recall where I read this, so it should be regarded as mere speculation, but I seem to recall that JM's lawyers believed he had been advised by his jailers not to trust them. The "Stockholm Syndrome" incident should tell us something about how people tend to identify with their captors; that was essentially JM's position at the time of his confessions.

It is blatantly obvious that Jessie was told not to trust his attorneys, based on his regard for Stidham before his February statement. I've read the accusations as well; I believe it was based on an interview with Stidham in Devil's Knot, but one could draw that conclusion with or without Stidham's speculation.

The same divide & conquer tactics were attempted on Jason Baldwin as well. Detective Bryn Ridge told him that he worked with Paul Ford in Wynne, AR and based on what he knew the time they both worked in Wynne, Ridge said he knew that Ford did not really care about the defendants he represented and did not have their best interests at heart, and generally that Ford could not be trusted.

When Ford complained to Fogleman, Fogleman dismissed it by claiming Jason probably made it up, but Ford never told Jason that he worked in Wynne at the same time as Det. Ridge.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

What I heard, again not substantiated except by repetition, the jailers were told by their employer (the State of Arkansas) to do what they could to shake his confidence in the attorneys so that he would testify against Damien and Jason. Then, when LE interviewed him, they compounded the situation by repeating the idea to distrust his attorneys. He was told that they were "with Damien and Jason in the circle" or something like that.

ETA: Of course, there's no way these tactics can be substantiated. The guards won't talk because they'd lose their jobs, and LE will deny this line of questioning, too. Sad, but so much in this case is sad. I'm anticipating the hearing.

 

[Mary456]

What I heard, again not substantiated except by repetition.

Please help me here.

How does a rumor become "substantiated" by repetition?

 

[Nova]

Please help me here.

How does a rumor become "substantiated" by repetition?

CR was being ironic. Her point was that the rumor remains unsubstantiated, to her knowledge.