The thing that gives me the most pause

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

[112883]

112883 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[lislis78]

Hello Sherry,
I can appreciate your statements, but I do want to point out that Jessie was shown a minimum of one photograph of the deceased boys. If you review the trial transcripts you will see that this was done to "evoke a response". And to be fair, it did, didn't it? How hard would it be to surmise where the boys were injured if one is shown a photograph? Or perhaps three photographs?

Source: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bridge2.html

Once you answer that we can move on to Jessie's ever-changing dialogue pertaining to the events of May 5th, 1993 which coincidentally (or not) do not match Peretti's time of death...a time of death that police were not privy to when they initially questioned Mr. Misskelley (again, not on May 15, 1993, but later).

[kerriew]

"Floresca said Misskelley told her and other students the day before he was arrested that he participated in the killings.
A group of students were driving last Wednesday after school to a friend's house to go swimming when Misskelley began telling his bizarre tale, she said. "He was saying he hit the little boy and the little boy ran off and he was taking him back to where Damien and the other boy were," she said. According to Misskelley's story, Echols had already killed the two other boys, she said.
http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2812"

Rudder posted the above. Jessie was not shown any photo graphs when he confessed here. So what reason would he have to do this to the group of students? The showing of the photographs is such bullshit. No one states which confession he was shown the photographs and did you read about Jessie's behavior when they showed him the picture of Chris Byers? The detectives had to pull the damm picture from his hand. It speaks volumns.

I also want to know something too. How come supporters say Jessie's confessions were not detailed but then they turn around and use him being shown the photos of the boys to justify why he knew details of the crime? It doesn't make any sense.

[lislis78]

Kerrie,
I did see Jon's reply. What date was this statement made to police and do you have a link so that I may read the entire statement? I don't even want to comment on it until I see it.

[kerriew]

The link is with Rudder's post.

[lislis78]

So if I am to understand this, you are linking me to an article that was written on June 7, 1993...AFTER the arrest of the three? Is this correct?

[lislis78]

No one states which confession he was shown the photographs and did you read about Jessie's behavior when they showed him the picture of Chris Byers? The detectives had to pull the damm picture from his hand. It speaks volumns.

I hear what you are saying. However, I don't follow your logic. How should he have reacted to the photograph? We are told by Det. Ridge that is how he reacted to one photograph. We have nothing else to substantiate this. We don't know if he was shown one photograph or eight.

I also want to know something too. How come supporters say Jessie's confessions were not detailed but then they turn around and use him being shown the photos of the boys to justify why he knew details of the crime? It doesn't make any sense.

Oh no, they were quite detailed. Let's see...One of the boys was choked with a stick, the boys were sexually assaulted, tied with rope....

[lislis78]

BTW...where's Farm? I hear he brings it hot and heavy when it comes to arguing...plus I'm told he's pretty good looking.

[taylorjaysmommy]

BTW...where's Farm? I hear he brings it hot and heavy when it comes to arguing...plus I'm told he's pretty good looking.

[Rudder]

So if I am to understand this, you are linking me to an article that was written on June 7, 1993...AFTER the arrest of the three? Is this correct?

And? How is Floresca privy to the details of Miskelley's confession? The confession excerpts were first published on the same day in the same paper as the Floresca article. Was the Commercial Appeal in on the huge conspiracy to frame these poor boys too?

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2519

Is anyone aware of Misskelley's confession being public knowledge before 6/7/93?

[lislis78]

Jon,
This statement might have been compelling had the witnesses actually testified in court....

Why didn't they?

[Rudder]

She'd only be able to testify against Misskelley, and seeing as they had his own confession in his own voice, I doubt they needed her. Seriously, what could she add after the jury had already heard Misskelley confess for themselves?

You don't find it odd that such a very specific detail was known beforehand? How do you explain it? According to Blood of Innocents, Floresca made this statement to the reporter on 6/5/93, the same day the arrests were announced. According to that article, the police wouldn't release any information about the arrests to the press to the point the Commercial Appeal had to get a judge involved over the freedom of information act. The judge continued the matter until 6/7/93...

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2800

How do you explain Floresca knowing details of Misskelley's confession?

[lislis78]

The prosecution absolutely needed a statement like this to prove that Jessie's confession was legitimate. Because the statement was full of holes and false details, police would have known that the defense would attack the validity of the confession as well as the methods used to extrapolate it.

You might look at this to mean that Jessie murdered the boys and confessed his participation in the crime. Another person might look at it as confirmation that the police were talking to Jessie and Vickie about Damien Echols.

But the problem remains that a journalist claims Kim said this and there is no police report confirming it. There is no testimony. All that exists is an article that makes the claim she made this statement. The police pursued all other witnesses (i.e. Buddy Lucas) but the one witness who is able to legitimize the first confession is never formally interviewed and was never called to testify.

What's that saying...? I call bullshit on this one.

[lislis78]

Jon,
You realize that you are referring to an article and a book that were written by the same authors, correct? Granted, BOI has one additional author, but you see my point. Do you have a source, compiled by someone else, confirming this statement?

[Rudder]

I call bullshit on this one.

Yeah, that seems to be the only way to make this whole wm3 thing work. Anything that points towards guilt must be dismissed as bullshit. 

I've seen you argue in depth and effectively against paid, Lislis. Can you put forth that same effort here? Simply dismissing evidence of guilt isn't gonna cut it.

Do you have a source, compiled by someone else, confirming this statement?

So, the fix was on, huh? *shakes head*

[lislis78]

I'm not dismissing this statement, Jon. The problem that I have is that there is no other reference to it. The same people who wrote the article also wrote BOI. That speaks to author bias.

You said the prosecution did not need that statement, which is the reasoning you are giving me for the police not having confirmed that the statement was even made. This is the part I don't agree with. The prosecution did need that statement. Now I know what's coming next...This is where you tell me that no, they didn't need it because they secured a conviction. Well, if they didn't need it to strengthen the prosecution's case against Misskelley in the original trial, certainly they could have used it to support the case in the event of an appeal.