Mark McClish & Statement Analysis

[kyleb]

Well of course Misskelley's initial confession is what prompted the arrests, but I don't presume upon myself any clairvoyance to answer such questions of what otherwise might have been.

 

[Ausgirl]

Clairvoyant? How theatrical.

What about an educated guess, then?

 

[kyleb]

I consider guessing in regards to what otherwise might have been an act of ignorance rather than education.

 

[Ausgirl]

Oh come onnnnn.... there has to be -some-thing you'd consider essential to the verdict, sans the confession? Surely.

Go on. Tell me it. You know you want to.

 

[kyleb]

There are three guilty verdicts which were rendered in this case, and Misskelley's initial confession was most certainly essential to his convection, but it wasn't even admitted as evidence in the Baldwin/Echols trial. Michael Carson's testimony was the essential piece of evidence in Baldwin's conviction, while Christi VanVickle and Jodee Medford's testimonies were essential to that of Echols. But again, I've no way to know what further investigation might have been uncovered or otherwise had such evidence not come to light, and those bits of evidence being linchpins in their respective convictions nearly two decades ago is irrelevant to my position on the body of evidence in this case as it current stands which you originally inquired about.

 

[primitivefuture]

However, we know that The Echols/Baldwin jury did consider Jessie's confession although they weren't supposed to. I'm curious to know how the deliberation would have gone had that not happened. The foreman told his lawyer that if the confession hadn't been mentioned in court, he might not have been able to convince the other jurors to convict. Have any of the jurors been interviewed post conviction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Compassionate Reader]

However, we know that The Echols/Baldwin jury did consider Jessie's confession although they weren't supposed to. I'm curious to know how the deliberation would have gone had that not happened. The foreman told his lawyer that if the confession hadn't been mentioned in court, he might not have been able to convince the other jurors to convict. Have any of the jurors been interviewed post conviction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not a research "whiz" like some are, but I believe that at least one juror was questioned in either the last Rule 37 hearing or some other proceeding. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[kyleb]

However, we know that The Echols/Baldwin jury did consider Jessie's confession although they weren't supposed to.

Well I know they listed Misskelley's confession as part of the evidence at one point, but that doesn't come anywhere close to proving they considered it when actually rendering their verdicts.

The foreman told his lawyer that if the confession hadn't been mentioned in court, he might not have been able to convince the other jurors to convict.

Have you seen anything more than hearsay in this regard?

Have any of the jurors been interviewed post conviction?

I know one is shown for a brief moment in West of Memphis, but only stating that she still believes the survival knife was used in the murders.

 

[reedus23]

I consider guessing in regards to what otherwise might have been an act of ignorance rather than education.

But you saying the WM3 actually murdered the 3 kids is nothing more than an educated guess unless you were there to witness the murders. Isn't that all any of this amounts to? Just differing degrees of being educated?

 

[reedus23]

Ok, don't kill me on it, these were more or less just notes I was taking as I went through it early on. I haven't gone back to re-read it to see if some other piece of evidence makes any of my thoughts irrelevant or wrong, so take it for what it's worth. And it's certainly not a statement analysis like McClish.

 

[kyleb]

But you saying the WM3 actually murdered the 3 kids is nothing more than an educated guess unless you were there to witness the murders.

Would you also argue that me saying Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic is just an educated guess, seeing as how I most certainly didn't witness that either?

 

[primitivefuture]

Well I know they listed Misskelley's confession as part of the evidence at one point, but that doesn't come anywhere close to proving they considered it when actually rendering their verdicts.


Have you seen anything more than hearsay in this regard? .

It is hearsay, though Warford seems a lot more credible to me than others involved with the case, such as Michael Carson. What motivation would he have to lie?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

No, my bad, Lloyd Warford's affidavit isn't hearsay, it's a witness statement. I'd never read that, and only recalled his secretary or such in one of the movies saying Warford told her that Arnold told him something along those lines, and that's hearsay. Regardless, I wasn't suggesting either of them lied and have no evidence to make such a determination with, though I can say that assuming Warford is telling the truth in his affidavit then he was a real for not coming forward until nearly a decade an a half later.

 

[primitivefuture]

No, my bad, Lloyd Warford's affidavit isn't hearsay, it's a witness statement. I'd never read that, and only recalled his secretary or such in one of the movies saying Warford told her that Arnold told him something along those lines, and that's hearsay. Regardless, I wasn't suggesting either of them lied and have no evidence to make such a determination with, though I can say that assuming Warford is telling the truth in his affidavit then he was a real for not coming forward until nearly a decade an a half later.

I agree that not coming forward with that information was scummy. However, I think for him, it was probably a really difficult decision to make. It seems that he wasn't sure if this information fell under the blanket of attorney client privilege. If it did, he would be breaking the law and risking disbarment by coming forward.I don't think the jury foreman's statements were protected, though. Warford was hired to defend Arnold's brother for sexually abusing a girl, and it seems that Arnold was just running off at the mouth about a topic unrelated to his brother's case. Obviously, I have no way of proving whether Warford is telling the truth, but he seems credible, or not. And his affidavit makes Arnold look like a jackass and a windbag who had no business being on that jury, never mind accepting the role of foreman, especially considering the fact that a close relative was involved in a sexual abuse case around the time of the WM3 trial. Warford's statements about Arnold provide a misconduct grab-bag.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

Assuming one takes Warford's statements on faith anyway, but it's rather a moot point now that the three are released.

 

[Ausgirl]

Woah -- McClish thread! And I don't see any McClishin' going on here! (except for reedus, who gets a cookie)

Knew I should've made a new thread for that question. I think it'd be a good thread for people who still think or who have come to think they're guilty, and I'd be really interested in what they have to say regarding which individual pieces of trial evidence they believe are most important to prove guilt, hindsight or not..

eta: Most respectfully snipped, reedus - but you totally made me choke on my coffee here:

DETECTIVE RIDGE: Can you describe to me what in those woods, what's the location where you were?
*A42 MISSKELLEY: Uh,
UH OH, JM WAS ASKED AN OPEN ENDED QUESTION THAT HE HAS TO SUPPLY THE ANSWER TO.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Is there a path that you go down?
THANK GOODNESS RIDGE SAVES THE DAY AND TELLS JM WHAT TO SAY.

 

[primitivefuture]

Woah -- McClish thread! And I don't see any McClishin' going on here! (except for reedus, who gets a cookie)

Knew I should've made a new thread for that question. I think it's a good thread for people who still think or who have come to think think they're guilty, and I'd be really interested in what they have to say regarding important trial evidence, hindsight or not..

Sorry I've got nothing to dish on McClish, but please do open a new thread. I'm curious what others' thoughts would be about a hypothetical taking Jessie's motormouth out of the equation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

Sorry I've got nothing to dish on McClish, but please do open a new thread. I'm curious what others' thoughts would be about a hypothetical taking Jessie's motormouth out of the equation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I shall be glad to comply, forthwith!

 

[Ausgirl]

Here we go:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9998916#post9998916"]Hypothetical: JM's confession really was 'out'/didn't happen - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Ausgirl]

Ok, don't kill me on it, these were more or less just notes I was taking as I went through it early on. I haven't gone back to re-read it to see if some other piece of evidence makes any of my thoughts irrelevant or wrong, so take it for what it's worth. And it's certainly not a statement analysis like McClish.

Thank you for sharing, this, reedus. I'm looking forward to reading it properly. Just not over coffee.