The thing that gives me the most pause

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

[Rudder]

The same people who wrote the article also wrote BOI. That speaks to author bias.

This really doesn't matter in the least unless you think the Floresca quote was fabricated by the journalists. Kim Floresca's statement was published right alongside the article detailing Misskelley's confession...on the same day. So, in order to dismiss this, you have to believe that the CA read the Misskelley statement and wrote a corroborating statement to support it, attributing it to Floresca. So, is Kim Floresca a made up character of the Commercial Appeal? Or did the journalists attribute a false statement to a real person and was never called on it? Either way, you're getting into "grassy knoll" territory more worthy of paid and rugs than of yourself.

[lislis78]

Love the analogy, Jon. You've always been one of my favorites on these boards and nothing has changed. I mean that sincerely.

With that said....
Are you really comparing me to Paid and Rugs because I'm questioning why this statement made by a Marion teenager named Kim Floresca was never made an official part of police record? You don't think it is strange that this girl was never questioned (at least on the record) and was never called to testify?

Grassy knoll or school book depository...Kennedy was still shot and killed.

[Rudder]

Are you really comparing me to Paid and Rugs because I'm questioning why this statement made by a Marion teenager named Kim Floresca was never made an official part of police record?

No, the comparison is because you'd have to believe there was a conspiracy between the media and the wmpd in order to dismiss this statement as part of a frame-up.

There are only 2 options here, Lislis. Either the statement was made or it wasn't. If it was made, it corroborates Misskelley's confession. If it was fabricated, there was a conspiracy.

[lislis78]

Not necessarily. I'm a person who likes simple answers.

Let's start again..
Why wasn't Kim questioned by police?

[Rudder]

Not necessarily. I'm a person who likes simple answers.

Let's start again..
Why wasn't Kim questioned by police?

Because the info she had was redundant.

Now your turn. How did she know Misskelley chased one of the boys down after he managed to run away?

[lislis78]

Redundant?

Is that what they teach officers at the WMPD academy? That supportive witness statements are redundant?

Now your turn. How did she know Misskelley chased one of the boys down after he managed to run away?
 
I might be able to answer that question if she had actually given a statement to police, had she testified, or had any follow-up occurred what-so-ever in reference to her claim.

[Rudder]

So your stance is that the Commercial Appeal fabricated this?

[flexj]

Jon,Auburn
Since Kim made the statement to the Commercial Appeal, could the defense subpoena her to testify and clear that up?  Wouldn't she have to either plead the 5th or testify one way or the other?

[Rudder]

I'll leave the legal stuff to Auburn on why or why not Floresca wasn't interviewed by anyone in a legal capacity. In my non-legal opinion, the prosecution simply didn't need her and she could only make things worse for the defense.

[flexj]

I agree it would have made it worse for the defense.

However, I think that the prosecution would have used her to testify if they could. Maybe her parents would not allow her to and that could have hurt if the prosecution put her on the stand and she clammed up

[flexj]

Bottom line Rudder what your saying is true. Its simple, there is no way no how of a conspiracy, the opportunity to add more circumstantial evidence against the three was in favor of the detectives

I think we saw it just as they did.

 We would not be here even discussing this case. They would have made it where the evidence was overwhelming that the average supporter would not have embraced this.

Sure there would have been nut jobs, but not as we see today

[Kimbo]

It's sorta like the bloody necklace thing, IMO.

How many times do you have to sink the battleship?

There was already quite enough evidence for conviction.

[auburnesq]

Jon,Auburn
Since Kim made the statement to the Commercial Appeal, could the defense subpoena her to testify and clear that up?  Wouldn't she have to either plead the 5th or testify one way or the other?

Either side could have interviewed her and/or requested her to testify at Jessie's trial. If called she would only have been able to invoke her 5th Amendment right if her testimony was going to be self incriminatory. The court could force her to appear, but they can't guarantee that she'd do any more then say she didn't recall or flat out say she has no information about the case.

The information is irrelevant to the courts now because the appellate courts reviews are confined to the trial record (sans for something like a new evidence claim) and that evidence is not part of the record, nor was the information unavailable to either side at the time of trial.

Why wasn't it followed up on at the time? I can only speculate. It seems as if it would not be exculpatory so the defense probably decided to not expend the resources on it. As for the prosecution, I agree with Rudder, you don't need it. Corroborating Jessie's confession would and did secure the conviction. It may have been slightly helpful, but certainly not material to the case. Of course the fact that most supporters think that Jessie's confession is just circumstantial evidence leads me to disregard most of what they say, which in turn reveals my inherent bias.

[flexj]

Thanks for clarifying Auburn

[flexj]

Exactly Kimbo

It is unfortunate that there are people out in this world who will try to make a buck no matter how many lives are destroyed in the process.