Misskelley's second confession

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

[pete zahut]

Hey guys, so I'm really hung up on jessie misskelley, his confession, his second confession, etc - I got this from a "supporter site" - it's jessie's lawyers version of why Jessie confessed again basically saying that law enforcement had talked to him and convinced him that he would get certain benefits if he confessed against the other kids - I'm not saying this is true I just wanted to post it here and get the rebuttal.

I realize that i am prob not the first person to post this so if someone has a link to the answer that would work just fine. thanks guys.



I. JESSIE MISSKELLEY'S SO-CALLED SECOND CONFESSION

I am often asked to explain the events surrounding my client's so-called second Confession. Many people look to this "second" confession as a way of dismissing the claims by the defense that Misskelley statements were the product of coercion by police and thereby false. These people do not know the factual basis surrounding Misskelley's post trial statements. In 1994, after Misskelley's conviction and immediately prior to the Echols/Baldwin trial in Jonesboro, prosecutors were desperate for Misskelley's testimony against his co-defendants. They did not feel that they could obtain convictions against Echols and Baldwin without Misskelley's assistance. This is evident for the scene in "Paradise Lost" where prosecutors are explaining to the victims' families that the chances were slim without Misskelley's testimony and cooperation. I prepared a Motion to Dismiss based upon Prosecutorial Misconduct for Echols and Baldwin's attorneys which was denied by the trial Court. In this motion, the factual basis surrounding Misskelley's second confession is laid out. It is public record and set forth herein in its entirety:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS
WESTERN DISTRICT
CRIMINAL DIVISION


STATE OF ARKANSAS    PLAINTIFF
Vs. No.:CR93 ______
DAMIEN WAYNE ECHOLS and CHARLES JASON BALDWIN

DEFENDANTS MOTION

Comes now the Defendants, by and through their Court Appointed Attorneys, and for their Motion, hereby state and allege as follows:

1. That a CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., was convicted on February 4, 1994, of the offenses of one (1) count of First Degree Murder and two (2) counts of Second Degree Murder and was sentenced by the Court to life imprisonment on the First Degree Murder charge and twenty (20) years imprisonment on each count of Second Degree Murder to run consecutively. On February 4, 1994, the Court and the Prosecution was informed by counsel for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. that said sentences were going to be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. That the Court and the Prosecution was further informed by defense counsel that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had no intention of testifying against his codefendants Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin.

2. That Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin are each charged with three (3) counts of Capital Murder and their trial is set to start in Craighead County on Tuesday, February 22, 1994.

3. That the Prosecuting Attorney, his Deputies, the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Department and the Craighead County, Arkansas Sheriff's Department have all known that Daniel T. Stidham and Gregory L. Crow were the duly appointed attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. since June, 1993.

4. That on February 4, 1994, following sentencing of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., as set forth above, officers of the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Office transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Arkansas Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officers, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited a statement from the Defendant.

5. That the actions of the Clay County Sheriff's Department officers on February 4, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.

6. This impropriety represents a conscious, calculated and ongoing attempt by the Prosecution to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Courtappointed attorneys and to circumvent Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.

7. That on Tuesday, February 8, 1994, and again on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's court appointed attorney, Daniel T. Stidham, visited with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., at the request of the Prosecution.

8. That on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Daniel T. Stidham, in person, again, notified the Prosecuting Attorney's Office that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had no desire to testify against his codefendant's, Damien Wayne Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, and would not be testifying against said codefendants.

9. That on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Fogleman contacted the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s father, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr., and requested that he talk his son into testifying against his codefendant's in exchange for a forty (40) year sentence. Mr. Misskelley, Sr., again, informed the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants in their upcoming trial in Craighead County.

10. That also on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecuting Attorney, Brent Davis, requested permission from Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s attorneys to interview Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Said permission was not granted.

11. Further, on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecution obtained an ex parte Order from the Court to transport Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to Craighead County to testify against his codefendants. This Order was obtained without the knowledge and consent of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his attorneys despite repeated statements to the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants. The fact that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was being transported to Craighead County to testify as a witness was communicated to the Media and a copy of the Order transporting him was even shown on television. To this date, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's attorneys have yet to see said Order.

12. That at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, February, 17, 1994, the attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. received a phone call from C. Joseph Calvin, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Clay County, Arkansas who stated that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was present in his office and desired to make a statement. Mr. Calvin was informed by both of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley's attorneys that he was not to take any statement from their client, Jessie.

13. That the CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was transported to Rector, Arkansas on February 17, 1994, by a member of the Craighead County Sheriff's Office. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officer, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited statements from the Defendant and encouraged Jessie Lloyd Misskelley to testify against his Co Defendants. Said officer even promised to bring Jessie Lloyd's girlfriend to the Jail to visit him.

14. That the actions of the Craighead County Sheriff's Department officer on February 17, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.

15. This impropriety represents a conscious, calculated and ongoing attempt by the Prosecution to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his Courtappointed attorneys and to circumvent Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as guaranteed him by the U.S. Constitution.

16. That Daniel T. Stidham and Gregory L. Crow arrived in Rector, Arkansas at approximately 7:00 p.m. and discovered that Prosecuting Attorney Brent Davis was also present at the office of Joe Calvin and that prosecutors had already communicated with their client without their knowledge and consent. That said attorneys were allowed to communicate with their client, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., for only approximately fifteen minutes when Prosecutors Davis and Calvin burst into the conference room and demanded to take a statement from Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Stidham and Crow objected to the interference and informed prosecutors that they wished to visit with their client uninterrupted. Prosecutors then expressed their fear, in the presence of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., that Defense Attorneys would convince Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to decline to make a statement to them. Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. then stood up and announced that he wished to make a statement in spite of the advise and counsel of his attorneys, and exited the conference room and refused to talk to his attorneys further.

17. That the Honorable Judge David Burnett was telephoned at which time Mr. Stidham voiced his objections to his client being present in the prosecutors office in the first place, that his presence at the prosecutor's office was a violation of his client's Constitutional rights, that Mr. Misskelley had requested psychiatric care on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, that he questioned Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's current mental competency and requested a mental evaluation, and that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. had informed him on Tuesday, February 15, 1994 that he did not wish to testify against his codefendant's. The Court denied the objections and request for a mental evaluation by Mr. Stidham and permitted the Prosecution to offer use immunity to Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and take his statement over said objections.

18. After taking his statement, the Prosecution transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Clay County Detention Center. Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr. traveled to Clay County to talk to his son but was denied access to his son by Clay County Officials.

19. That the Prosecution, the Court and attorneys for Damien Wayne Echols and Jason Baldwin were notified on February 18, 1994, that the attorneys for Jessie Lloyd Misskelley were "outraged" at the conduct of the prosecution and that the Prosecution was to have no further contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, as reflected in Defendants Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

[flexj]

11. Further, on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, the Prosecution obtained an ex parte Order from the Court to transport Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to Craighead County to testify against his codefendants. This Order was obtained without the knowledge and consent of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. and his attorneys despite repeated statements to the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against his codefendants. The fact that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was being transported to Craighead County to testify as a witness was communicated to the Media and a copy of the Order transporting him was even shown on television. To this date, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr's attorneys have yet to see said Order.

Hi Pete
 I think I will let a member of the board really answer that, as I have only been here a while and I still am reading case topics as well.  With that I do find the two statements I just put into bold and italics very strange, if the order was on TV, would it not be logical that the defence had one as well.

Again I think I better let someone who is better equipped to answer, but great question

[Storm]

Not only Jessie confess twice..it was multiple times.  He says over and over, "I just want something to be done... I want the truth to come out." Of course his defense attorneys are going to tell him to shut the hell up.  What defense attorney wouldnt.

[pete zahut]

No, I get that. And i get that his attorney is the most likely person to lie on behalf of his client. I'm just saying he says that Jessie was promised things in the car ride from the trial and that the prosecutors were there with him before his defense team showed up at the meeting suggesting they had time to talk to him - promise him things etc for his testimony with no one there to monitor it. i just wanted to see if the prosecutors side had disputed this timeline, accusation - I'm sure they have, I was just checking, seeing if you guys had already talked about it.

What's amazing about a lot of these sites, pro and con is how arguments have been raised and disputed for over a decade... that's a lot of back and forth and very interesting.

[Storm]

I find it very interesting also.  I think tomm youll get more answers from more informed ppl here. Im not new here, but im not totally old either   What was really interesting.. but a lot of reading.. is the trial transcripts from jessie's trial.  I really recommend reading that.

[pete zahut]

will do. Thanks. So much info to digest

[sheer]

Hi Pete,

It is not surprising that Stidham offers his motion without a link to it's reception and discussion in court.

This is what's known as the 2/22:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html

It's one of the docs I read that greatly informed my change from supporter to non.  You will see, not only how incompetent Stidham is, but that he is an incredible liar.

It's long, but it's an easy, illuminating and often very bloody funny document.

I like this bit:

In response to paragraph 17 in the motion you posted, Brent Davis said:

At one point Mr. Stidham did call your Honor, and I think at the point where he asked that -- told the Court that Jessie Misskelley needed a psychiatric evaluation, Mr. Crow, {Stidham's partner} who was sitting next to me at that time, made the comment that someone in the room needed a psychiatric evaluation but he wasn't sure that it was Jessie Misskelley, Junior.

HAHAH.. I was going to pull bits out to address each point in Stidham's motion, but I really think you should read the whole thing.


Then we can talk about the tape that Stidham made when he asked Jessie to swear on the bible.......

sheer

[DogIsYourName]

Hi Pete,

If you read Stidham's motion carefully, you will see that he does not allege that the officers promised Jessie anything on the Feb. 4 ride from trial to jail.  Stidham instead says that they promised Jessie things during a transport on Feb. 17, which appears to be yet another confession  (though not documented, because they had the taped one against his attorney's advice later that day).

4. That on February 4, 1994, following sentencing of the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., as set forth above, officers of the Clay County, Arkansas Sheriff's Office transported Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. to the Arkansas Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officers, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited a statement from the Defendant.

5. That the actions of the Clay County Sheriff's Department officers on February 4, 1994, were a willful attempt to make improper contact with the Defendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., without the knowledge and consent of his Court appointed attorneys, and that said conduct on the part of the officers is imputed to the Prosecuting Attorney whether the Prosecuting Attorney had direct knowledge of said actions or not.

...

13. That the CoDefendant, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. was transported to Rector, Arkansas on February 17, 1994, by a member of the Craighead County Sheriff's Office. That during transport of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. the officer, in violation of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.'s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, elicited statements from the Defendant and encouraged Jessie Lloyd Misskelley to testify against his Co Defendants. Said officer even promised to bring Jessie Lloyd's girlfriend to the Jail to visit him.

[pete zahut]

thanks guys. Esp for the link. That's why I post on here instead of digging through stuff - I figure you guys have already been over this etc. thanks!

[Tammy]

Your name makes me hungry.

[Farm]

he does not allege that the officers promised Jessie anything on the Feb. 4 ride from trial to jail.

Let's hope not, since Stidham got his own taped confession from Misskelley just four days later.

[Tammy]

No fewer than 16 times, Stidham reminded Jessie to shut his trap. He sang like a canary every chance he got.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

<snip>

DAVIS: Ok, Now for purposes of the record I want it to reflect that number 1, Mr. Stidham and myself have talked with Judge Burnett and advised of these proceedings. And after discussing this with him he approved or said that we could take a statement with Mr. Misskelley's attorneys present.

STIDHAM: Over my objections.

DAVIS: Over Mr. Stidham's objections. Also for Mr. Misskelley's benefit this statement will be taken with a grant of use of immunity approved by the Court which means that anything in this statement cannot be used in any proceeding against Jessie Misskelley, Jr. in the future, down the road, whatever. Ah, also for the record and ah, Mr. Stidham can add to this. But it's my understanding that any statement Mr. Misskelley gives will be against the advise of his attorney Mr. Stidham and Mr. Crow.

<snip>

STIDHAM: Ok, I also told you that giving a statement was against my advise and wishes.

MISSKELLEY: That's what you said.

STIDHAM: Ok. I am advising you that I don't think it's a good idea for you to give this statement. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM: OK. Do you understand that Mr. Crow is giving you the same advise ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

<snip>

STIDHAM: So you understand that my advise to you is that you not say anything. Do you understand that?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

<snip>

STIDHAM: And that's why I asked the Judge for the opportunity to get you that evaluation before you make any statement. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: And you also understand that again it's my advise that you not talk or give any kind of statement here tonight ..ah.. until we have a chance to file a motion for a new trial and get your Psychiatric Evaluations complete. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM: And it is your decision to go ahead and make this statement anyway ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: You still want to give a statement despite my advise and counsel?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, cause I want something done about it.

<snip>

STIDHAM: And you want to make my statement regardless of my advise against doing so?

MISSKELLEY: Yep.

<snip>

STIDHAM: Do you realize that once you make this statement there is no turning back?

MISSKELLEY: I know there's no turning back.

<snip>

CROW: Jessie. You realize that I don't always agree with everything that Dan says but this time I agree with him. I don't think you should say anything. Do you know that? Are you aware of the fact that I don't think you should say anything ?

MISSKELLEY: Yea, I understand what your saying.

<snip>



STIDHAM: Jessie, listen to me. For the purpose of the tape this is Dan Stidham. Ah.. prior to making this statement you refused to talk to Mr. Crow and I is that correct?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I did.

<snip>

STIDHAM: And again we advised you not to make this statement? Is that correct?

MISSKELLEY: Yes
He just couldn't.

[Fwarm]

he does not allege that the officers promised Jessie anything on the Feb. 4 ride from trial to jail.

Let's hope not, since Stidham got his own taped confession from Misskelley just four days later.

After the Bible? The whiskey bottle? Really? No way