False confession and Jesse Misskeley

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[mikeydreslim]

Was Jesse's confession false ?

I have been on this forum for a few days sitting on the fence, but in the last couple of days I have done so much reading and I am beginning to believe those boys are innocent.

Why ?

First thing first it's because I started looking at this from an objective standpoint, I never believed in the innocence of those kids based on the documentary and I wanted to do my research myself.  We all have to admit that there was no physical evidence linking those kids to the murder, all they had was Jesse's confession but check this link out 


http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1779251&page=1


Strikenly similar to Jesse, I am not going to go into the facts of the case because we all know the facts as they are, the difference is we choose to interpret it differently. I still have not seen anything to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that those kids did it. If you consider that a person like James Kenny Martin, who failed some key question during the polygraph test was let to go then I think what these boys deserve at least is a new trial and if everyone is so convinced of their guilt,let them have their day in court with no Bias.

[GODDESS6]

he confessed 3 times~

[mikeydreslim]

he confessed 3 times~

Goddess, Rocha confessed multiple times too, false confession is quite rampant and there have been cases of people confessing adamantly, the fact that jesse confessed multiple times is not a proof of his guilt. I have studied cases where the subject confessed multiple times to a crime they didn't commit. I can show you links, and they are all similar...low IQ, and their first confessions are usually all over the place. It just got me thinking because multiple false confessions do happen, so if I take Jessy's confession away, what else is left to convict these kids ?

[MachaSidhe]

You forgot to add this:

"Finally, after 15 months, all charges against Roberto Rocha were dropped. Jamerson Mangrum, a friend of Hamlin's and the last person seen with her, was convicted of her rape and murder this past December.

"You can't take a confession and just lock the guy up and throw away the key and let a jury decide his guilt or innocence. I'm not willing to take that chance," Hunton said."

Unlike this kid key parts of Misskelley's confessions were corrborated. 

Bit of article taken from here: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/guilt.htm

5. Jessie Misskelley

In 1994, Jessie Misskelley was found guilty of participating in the murder of three eight-year-old boys - Steven Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore. Police interviewed Misskelley about a month after the boys were found dead in a creek-tied up, beaten, and mutilated. Although Leo and Ofshe assert the confession was "inconsistent with the facts of the case," it was in fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be consistent in its most important respect - the identity of the main killers.

About a month after the gruesome murders, police asked Misskelley to come to the station house in order to answer some questions. Misskelley admitted that he watched as two of his friends-Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin-beat and abused the young boys, and that he (Misskelley) kept one of the boys (Michael Moore) from escaping. Based on this incriminating statement, police arrested Echols and Baldwin as principals in the murders and Misskelley as their accomplice. The accuracy of Misskelley's identification of Baldwin and Echols as the killers was established by guilty verdicts at a separate trial resting entirely on independent evidence, because Misskelley's confession could not be used as evidence at that trial. That independent evidence included clothing fibers found on the victims' clothes that were microscopically indistinguishable from items found in the Baldwin and Echols residences, and from various witnesses who heard Echols and Baldwin admit committing the crimes. The capital sentencing phase also included grisly testimony from a defense psychiatric expert who said Echols believed, among other things, drinking blood of others gave him special powers.

At Misskelley's trial, the prosecution acknowledged some discrepancies between Misskelley's confession and the crime scene, but identified a number of consistencies knowable only by someone with first-hand knowledge of the crime. These details included not only correctly identifying Echols and Baldwin as the killers, but also the following:

Misskelley confessed that, when he left the scene, the Byers boy was already dead on the ground; there was evidence that the creek contributed to the deaths of the other two boys, but not the Byers boy. 

Misskelley confessed that the Byers boy was cut on his penis; the Byers boy was the only boy found with severe genital mutilations.

Misskelley confessed that one of the boys was cut on the face; one of the boys had facial lacerations.

Leo and Ofshe also report that "numerous" witnesses placed Misskelley at a wrestling competition forty miles from the crime scene. This wrestling alibi would, in the colorful phrase of reporters covering the trial, be "pinned for the count." Two of the alibi witnesses had previously given statements to the police that they were unaware of Misskelley's whereabouts on the night of the murder. According to the reporters, the prior statements "destroyed any credible

Misskelley alibi." In any event, at trial, the defense fully explored all of the issues. Although Misskelley did not take the stand, his attorneys presented extended testimony from an expert, none other than Richard Ofshe, about the alleged false confession. The jury nevertheless convicted Misskelley, and nothing in Leo and Ofshe's account suggests that any significant relevant evidence was kept from them.

Developments since Misskelley's trial, not discussed by Leo and Ofshe, strongly confirm the verdict's accuracy. After his conviction, Misskelley confessed two more times. On the drive to the state prison, after he was assured that nothing he said could be used against him, Misskelley gave a detailed statement about the crime. Prosecutors then arranged for a judicially-approved interview of Misskelley, over the strenuous objections of his defense attorneys. In the forty-minute recorded interview, Misskelley provided details about the crime. Misskelley said that, when he got off work at dinnertime, he went to a wooded area with his friends Echols and Baldwin. When three boys entered the woods, Echols jumped them. When they resisted, he (Misskelley) and Baldwin had entered the fray. Misskelley grabbed the one with the blue boy scout uniform (Michael Moore) to prevent his escape. To keep him under control, Misskelley hit him repeatedly on the head. Misskelley then watched as one of the other boys was cut on the penis, recounting that "I seen blood fly."* Misskelley also explained how the boys were tied up with shoelaces from their shoes. When first questioned by police, he had said that the boys were tied up with rope to throw the police "off track." Misskelley left before Echols and Baldwin, carrying with him a bottle of whiskey, which he busted under a highway overpass close to the woods. Prosecutors and defense counsel went to the overpass and found a broken bottle at the indicated location. The broken bottle neck matched a bottle of Evan Williams Kentucky Bourbon, the kind Misskelley said he drank the day of the murders.


Macha

[Rudder]

If you consider that a person like James Kenny Martin, who failed some key question during the polygraph test was let to go

When supporters bring up people like Martin, Bojangles and King Sam, it makes me wonder why the WMPD would bother framing three teenagers when they investigated these more likely suspects. If I was going to frame someone, it would probably be a scumbag like Martin. It would be a hell of a lot easier than framing three innocent teens, don't you think?

[mikeydreslim]

If you consider that a person like James Kenny Martin, who failed some key question during the polygraph test was let to go

When supporters bring up people like Martin, Bojangles and King Sam, it makes me wonder why the WMPD would bother framing three teenagers when they investigated these more likely suspects. If I was going to frame someone, it would probably be a scumbag like Martin. It would be a hell of a lot easier then framing three innocent teens, don't you think?

I do not believe the Wm3 were framed, if they are innocent (key word if) then it's most likely that the police were blind sided and just arrested the wrong people...if the animal predation theory turns out to be correct, then it means Jesse's statement was false....

[Fwarm]

No the animal nonsense proves nothing and changes nothing even if there were animals it changes not one damn thing about the case unless they can totally show their were no knife marks and that is not going to happen. Because, knives were used and there was no doubt of knives being used post October 29th in fact before that it was Mark Byers Kershaw knife that "matched perfectly" yet that didn't pan out for you supporters too well. Supporters swore up and down knives were used prior to this latest batch of total bullshit they invented out of the air.

That is the integrity of supporters though as in they have none.

[mikeydreslim]

No the animal nonsense proves nothing and changes nothing even if there were animals it changes not one damn thing about the case unless they can totally show their were no knife marks and that is not going to happen. Because, knives were used and there was no doubt of knives being used post October 29th in fact before that it was Mark Byers Kershaw knife that "matched perfectly" yet that didn't pan out for you supporters too well. Supporters swore up and down knives were used prior to this latest batch of total bullshit they invented out of the air.

That is the integrity of supporters though as in they have none.

The murder weapon still has not been found, so we do not know if knives were used, no knives that the prosecution presented showed any links to the crime scene. And scott I resent being reffered to as a supporter, I just heard about this case less than 2 weeks ago. All my opinions are based on the documents I have seen, and I would prefer if those kids were guilty because it means justice is being served, but in my mind there is a huge possibitlity that they are innocent and that bugs the hell out of me. When I have time, I'll link yo to all the research I have done in this case, and I just cannot help the feeling that something is not right.

[Fwarm]

We can't say for sure the knife found was not the one(s) used. Although it doesn't match Jessie's statement verbatim it could have been there and used it can't be excluded.

I am glad you are reading the facts and not the propaganda. I am also glad you resent being called a supporter I would be too.

Yes I will wait for your post and will be happy to discuss it regardless of what you believe innocent or guilty.

[Farm]

I'm still waiting for a single supporter to offer an explaination why an innocent Misskelly would continue to confess to his own attorney after his arrest.

[OpenMind]

I'm still waiting for a single supporter to offer an explaination why an innocent Misskelly would continue to confess to his own attorney after his arrest.

Why Jesse confessed to his attorney bothered me for a long time. It finally made sense to me after reading things that Stidham had said about how he felt about Jesse at the beginning of all this.

Jesse confessed to Dan Stidham right at the beginning. He repeated to him what he told the police. Why? Because Jesse didn't differentiate the difference between an attorney and a detective. He believed that when Stidham was asking for information, he was being interrogated again. He was just saying what he thought he wanted to hear.  Luckily, his attorney saw all the inconsistencies in the confession. At one point while visiting Jesse 2 months after the arrests, Jesse asks Stidman who "Satin" is, saying that a preacher had brought him a pamphlet about Satan. He realized that Jesse could hardly read, and was mispronouncing Satan as "Satin". It would seem to me that a confessed Satan worshiper as Jesse proclaimed, would know the word Satan quite clearly. Yes, he could of been pretending to not understand. He could have made up that he was just telling him what he wanted to hear. At the beginning, Stidham thought his client was guilty and was just hoping to spare his life. After hearing Jesse confess to him, it didn't add up.  Something changed his attorney's mind, who would of had a hell of an easier job just trying to plea bargain this case, and gave him the impression his client was worth fighting for. 

[MsBiznMphs]

This is just my strictly my opinion, but that whole business about 'satin' has never sounded right to me.  I just sounds a bit contrived.  Even when I believed that they were innocent, that had me rolling my eyes.

There was too much talk at that time about satan, devil-worshipping, etc. for him not to have ever heard the term and have no idea what this meant.  I am willing to believe that he might not be able to spell it (or perhaps read it correctly), but I do not believe that he was ignorant of 'who' satan is supposed to be.  I'm not saying that he was a satan-worshipper, just that the assertion that he had no idea whatsoever what any of this was about it BS.  Besides, whether you believe that they are guilty or innocent, you have to believe that there was some serious dabbling going on with a number of those kids and no way was J completely ignorant about those type of things.  Just look at the Vicky and Aaron Hutcheson connection with Jessie and how much time he spent at her place, and how she was conducting her own mini investigation and trying to get information about Damien, laying out books on the occult, etc.  There had to be alot of discussion going on. His complete ignorance doesn't fly any way that you look at it. 

And I guess that if I believe that Stidham would come up with that wad of hooey, I have to believe that he might come up with some more.  The other attorneys (even his partner) thought that he lost his perspective about the case, so I am not sure he is the most reliable person to interpret what Jessie might have thought about what role Stidham was playing in the process or what he meant when he confessed. 

[Farm]

Jesse confessed to Dan Stidham right at the beginning. He repeated to him what he told the police. Why? Because Jesse didn't differentiate the difference between an attorney and a detective.

That is such a massive load of steaming Stidham bullshit that I find it hard to believe anyone even considered it.

I mean, that's just stupid.

First, you have to pretend Jessie had never had a lawyer before, and second, You have to pretend Jessie's parents hadn't been talking to both Jessie and his attorney all this time.

We aren't talking a couple days here, but months.

No, make no mistake,... Jessie told his attornies he was there because he was.

There is no other even remotely rational explaination.

Of course Stidham played the "coercion" card, what other choice did he have?

There is no other defense once a defendant has confessed.

Fortunately the Jury heard the testimony - as opposed to supporters - and they saw his nonsense for what it was.

[OpenMind]

You are right, the confession was nonsense. Someone with first hand knowledge of a crime, as Jesse is supposed to of had, would not have had so many details so far off. And Jesse wasn't the only one who confessed to the crime, the police had many people call in and confess. Must be if you confess to a crime, you actually committed it, because obviously false confessions never occur.

I am not saying they are guilty or innocent, I am simply saying, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at all the things Jesse claimed happened, that we all know didn't happen, to step back and say, "something is way off here".

All I am saying is that someone's life is at stake, and without any physical evidence linking them to the crime. The confession just isn't enough.

[cjm0161]

What about not having a valid alibi?
What about lying on the stand about said alibi?
What about a mentally unstable individual that predicted the events?

Are.....those.....enough????

Someone's memory is at stake.  3 in fact. And Echols is the reason for those memories
instead of 3 boys enjoying life.......

Is......that....enough????