False confession and Jesse Misskeley

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

[76387]

76387 Posts in 6760 Topics by 681 Members
Latest Member: wiltar

[Farm]

You are right, the confession was nonsense.

Of course it is.

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.

But then you wouldn't know, as you don't know anything about this case that wasn't spoon fed to you.

Jesse wasn't the only one who confessed to the crime, the police had many people call in and confess.

See what I mean?

That's even a bigger load of shit than your last post.

Must be if you confess to a crime, you actually committed it, because obviously false confessions never occur.

Or maybe you're just an idiot?

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".

Again, you wouldn't know.

You don't have the slighest idea what you are even talking about.

I will just bet you are one of the many morons who insist Jessie gave multiple times for the murders, aren't you?

Spoonfed supporter bullshit.

[Krissy]

At what point did Stidham find out about HBO?

I believe he saw a way to create more out of it than was there. My theory is he believes Jessie is guilty. He probably figured he'd lose the case. But he also saw self-aggrandizement. In the end, he looked out for himself. Lawyers are talented liars. Many have it down to an art form. Just my impression.

Krissy

[MachaSidhe]

I think you may be right Krissy there is some question about his objectivity. There is also this:

"We then rode down to the Department of Corrections on Tuesday.  Mr. Stidham rode with me.  Mr. Fogleman and Mr. Gitchell met us at Brinkley, and we went to Pine Bluff.  At that time, Mr. Stidham talked with him for approximately ten or fifteen minutes, at which point he came out of the room, grabbed a Bible. went back in and -- this is my personal observation -- but approximately 30 to 45 minutes later Mr. Stidham exited.  He was very upset, unnerved, just kept mumbling things -- "I don't know what I'm supposed to do now.  I don't know what to do now."

And after thirty minutes of conversation, it became apparent at that point that his client had indicated that he was involved in the murders and had in fact witnessed and played a part in the murders.

Mr. Stidham then went back into the room, at which time he did not allow us, nor did we request or insist on having contact with his client.  He went back inside and talked for another hour and came back and to paraphrase indicated that his client's story matched with the facts much better and there were a few things we needed to do to be able to corroborate his statement.

At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client's statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.

To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, "If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened."  At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.

We then take the bottle to a local liquor store where we proceeded to spend the better part of an hour matching the bottle with certain items, and lo and behold it matches with the brand name bottle Mr. Stidham had indicated that we should be looking for in the first place."

Of course some reject to putting any significance to that but I think it means alot when Stidham's own client giving him what he says is corroborating evidence to show proof he was there.

Macha

[Hawkeye]

You are right, the confession was nonsense.

Of course it is.

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.

But then you wouldn't know, as you don't know anything about this case that wasn't spoon fed to you.

Jesse wasn't the only one who confessed to the crime, the police had many people call in and confess.

See what I mean?

That's even a bigger load of shit than your last post.

Must be if you confess to a crime, you actually committed it, because obviously false confessions never occur.

Or maybe you're just an idiot?

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".

Again, you wouldn't know.

You don't have the slighest idea what you are even talking about.

I will just bet you are one of the many morons who insist Jessie gave multiple times for the murders, aren't you?

Spoonfed supporter bullshit.

I joined this site today, having just started to look into this case over the past year.  So far from what I've learned, I believe that there were a lot of holes in the trial.  I guess you can call me a supporter if you want.

Here's my issue:  I came onto this site to find out more information, so I could be well informed before making a decision about this case.  You have to have all sides of a story before you can form an opinion, and so far I've only read what the so-called "supporters" have written.

Then, I read this thread, which is my introduction to this forum.  All I see is this guy 'Farm" resorting to name calling in the midst of what should be an intelligent discussion.  Is that the best you've got?  I honestly thought topics on this forum were going to be discussed maturely and intelligently.

[Scott]

And your very first post instead of being about the case is about the people. What part of that do you not understand? Why did you admit you knew nothing about this place and this was your first thread and then do what you are complaining about and that is going after other posters.

Why don't you post you points about the case instead of trying to be some moral police on posting practices? You don't know anything about this history between these people and you are taking sides. Pretty much I suspect how you approached this case with blinders on and lack of desire to learn anything

Because we have seen many people like you. You drink up the PR Firm propaganda and then come in here like you know something and you don't know anything because if you did you would have pointed out the huge holes instead of just repeating the supporter bullshit.

If you don't get it let me explain, we don't give a shit about your issue this is not the supporter forum with a bunch of child murder supporters sitting around telling each other lies and patting each other on the back like some cult. I don't care if you like me or if you dislike everyone on this forum. We are talking about 3 children beat to death by 3 scumbag pieces of shit and it is not funny and we are not going to be buddies.

I hear the shit all time:

They will say there were tons of mistakes in this case

I will ask what mistakes? No answer

You said there are huge holes in this case

So I am going to ask what holes?

Then people like you will say there is no evidence and I will post the ASSC opinions and you will go away and ignore it.

[sheer]

Oh yawn it's another Tom/pagoda.

"I am here to try and discredit Farm, I don't discuss the case."


sheer

[Hawkeye]

My very first post wasn't about the 'people' it was about the fact that the person in question replied to another post without any valid counterpoints - only insults.

First of all, I didn't kill those three children, or any other children for that matter, so don't you dare equate me with anyone who did.  Secondly, I didn't say I believed every thing the film told me.  I said that I saw the film, and so far the films and the rest of the media have been my only sources of information on this case.  I said that I came here to examine the other side so that I could form an educated opinion.  

Thirdly, I didn't repeat any sort of propaganda.  I didn't give my opinion of anything except how juvenile that person's post sounded, and I did read some of his other posts in other forums which sounded the same.  Maybe you're right - I don't know the history between the two posters so I may have jumped to conclusions.  

Try reading my posts next time before you attack me.  I said clearly that I did, in fact, come here to learn something.  

And yes, I'll post what I believe to have been mistakes in the case as soon as I read more in this forum.  I want to see what's already being discussed or has been discussed so I don't rehash any old points.

[Scott]

Then discuss the case forget the people. I never mentioned the films but whatever.

There has been endless lemmings whining like girlymen for months now it gets old.

[Farm]

it was about the fact that the person in question replied to another post without any valid counterpoints.

You have to have a valid point before anyone can offer a valid counterpoint.

Maybe you're right - I don't know the history between the two posters so I may have jumped to conclusions.  

Yes, you did.

And yet you are still going to try to defend your actions.


Try reading my posts next time before you attack me.  I said clearly that I did, in fact, come here to learn something.

Yet your very first post was an attack where by your own admission you jumped to conclusions.

You see why folks laugh at your kind yet?

[Storm]

Hawkeye, I came here, after seeing the movies, and reading stuff on WM3.org. I at first was on the fence, and I wanted to learn more. I posted here, the first time with a question, and remarked I was sitting on the fence. Not one person posted something demeaning to me, or rude, or called me stupid.
Alot of people on here are more then willing to discuss this case with supporters in a nonconfrontational way. the thing I dont think you have seen being new here, is how some people will come here and degrade the people on this forum. You see farm being rude to peole here, that is because they have been here many times talking crap and being rude. Farm has always backed his statements up with proof and statements from the case. But yet, they keep calling him out and saying he is the worst person. To me, the way they post, its like they are pissed because farm believes the way he does, and they cant win an argument with him. They talk their shit and leave, without any proof with what they are claiming.
I have never seen farm be rude on here without it being warrented. I dont know about you, but if i had alot of people come on here, and have been for years, and call me everything in the book, and try arguing with me with empty proof and degrading me in the process, I would be a little on guard too.
I would say, DEFINITLY go to http://callahan.8k.com/ and read, read, read. This has just aboout EVERYTHING on the case, without prejudice, so you can form your own opinion. Maybe you have already gone to it, and there is SO much to read. Im still reading everything on there, and am not close to being done. and regardless how you feel about the case, people on here are willing to discuss the case in a rational way without being rude, even farm, if you come in in a nonthreatning manner.

[Farm]

I would be a little on guard too.

I have had members of the borg contact two of my employers in an effort to create problems in my personal life.

One was truly a classic, a formerly well known member got my IP from an admin, traced it to the domain, and E-mailed the webmaster with some particularly imaginative tales of company resource abuse.

Of course being the company webmaster at the time, I made absolutely certain these complaints were promptly forwarded to the appropriate I.T. supervisor.

Hell, Dave has actually ran a background check on me.

At this point I rerely even notice when another of these idiots question my "style".

[Scott]

All because not a one of them can show innocence.

They say it all the time like a bunch of parrots but not one of them will come here and show us why the WM3 is innocent. Almost every time they post about the case over on the borg they interject their theories into the subject they rarely use trial information.

[Mary7875]

Hell, Dave has actually ran a background check on me.

Speaking of Dave...he cites Elizabeth Loftus, a specialist in eyewitness testimony, to support Jessie's " false" confession.

In 1986, Timothy Hennis was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of Kathryn Eastburn and the deaths of her two little girls, ages 5 and 3.  They were all stabbed to death.  Three years later, on a technicality, Hennis won a new trial.  Elizabeth Loftus testified for the defense, claiming that Patrick Cone's eyewitness testimony was the result of a false memory.  Hennis was acquitted. 

Recently, Army investigators began running evidence from cold-case crime scenes.  Using DNA technology not available in the 1980s, they found a match between Hennis and semen left on Kathryn Eastburn.  He is to be tried again for the murders (by the Army, this time) in the next few months.  He did it, no doubt in my mind.

Did Elizabeth Loftus really believe that Patrick Cone's eyewitness testimony was false, or was she swayed as a paid expert?  No way to know (although I'd vote for the latter).  However, if Hennis is convicted, I imagine she'll say she was simply mistaken. 

So what's my point?  Experts can make mistakes, and experts can be bought.  If Hennis is convicted, Dave may want to give you a break, farm, and do a background check on her.

[MachaSidhe]

sounds like she went to school at  Ofshe's  School of ethics

school motto: I 'm always willing to trade my integrity for cash.

[Farm]

Well, you can bet that the State didn't request all of Misskelly's statements for nothing.

Stidham got away with lying his fat ass off for 14 years.

What do you think Misskelly's "coercion" chances are in federal court when they see that he maintained his guilt to his own attornies long after his arrest?