Unbiased Opinion

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

[flexj]

I base my opinion on my own knowledge and experience specifically working with the FBI and CIA.  Many professional interrogators attempt to ask open ended questions and get the subject to give a narrative as its been found to be more accurate and conclusive than asking leading and manipulating questions.  More so if the subject has been pressured.   This is why torture has raised many doubts about its effectiveness.  I'm by no means saying Misskelly was tortured at least physically but there are many ways to mind fuck someone to the point they will say anything to get you to stop doing what you are doing. Once you break someone they are done, they will continue to say what you want them to say.


First that wasn't the case, as he was only in the police station for a few hours when he started his confession.
Second I disagree with the above quote as WE did get Intel that helped get some of the leaders of Al Qaeda.
Third, you presume that Misskelly's low IQ makes him susceptible, yet all you have is the little bit of info you got from supporter boards and Callahan, yet the kid was street smart, been in trouble with the law before and knew how it works...Until you can prove to me you have more inside knowledge of Misskelly than some of the people who are far more knowledgeable, your argument will not hold any weight here. 





I

[7718billy]

First that wasn't the case, as he was only in the police station for a few hours when he started his confession.
Second I disagree with the above quote as WE did get Intel that helped get some of the leaders of Al Qaeda.


Is this such a revelation or what relevance does you comment have on my argument? Besides that how many is a few, can you quantify this?

How many intelligence reports have you read where information has come from torture?  In fact, how many intelligence reports have you read.  How many intelligence report have you assessed?  Have you been able to compare and analyze intelligence reports veracity based on different interrogation techniques?   

I have an by no means am I an expert but rather have an intermediate understanding and eight years of experience analyzing human intelligence reports. Nor am I trying to bait you I simply am looking for information.    


Third, you presume that Misskelly's low IQ makes him susceptible, yet all you have is the little bit of info you got from supporter boards and Callahan, yet the kid was street smart, been in trouble with the law before and knew how it works.

You presume he isn't susceptible based on what?

If you believe his confession to be valid I respect that. However, if you believe he was not susceptible to manipulation or coercion based on IQ then I can not respect that.  I don't presume but rather know that people with a low IQ are impressionable and easily manipulated. Do I think he was?  I don't know but the way the police conducted the interview and the questions they asked indicates strong possibility. 

What evidence suggest he was street smart?  What evidence suggest he "knew how it works".  I would be happy to agree with you if this can be proven.


 
...Until you can prove to me you have more inside knowledge of Misskelly than some of the people who are far more knowledgeable, your argument will not hold any weight here. 

Again, I'm not trying to change your opinion but rather trying to extract information.  I find the best way to do this is to present a questions with what I think.  Most people are quick to want to prove someone wrong and will use facts to do this.  You however, haven't done this.  You obviously can't or won't be proven wrong because you have stead fast convictions, which it okay and respectable but please just don't attack my opinion as wrong with out valid rebuttal that includes information why you don't agree.  In other word this post I am responding to suggest that I'm wrong but and the only reason you give is your opinion that I'm wrong.    You said I'm using information from the supporters board.   I've used only my opinions and facts from callahans, I would like you to post where I've copied, quoted, or or otherwise made reference to supporters board or someone else's opinion/thoughts?  Let me save you the trouble of searching....I didn't





I

[kerriew]

"I dismissed the poster who posted it."

I think Billy is playing games. I posted the Callahan's site to help you out but I won't make that mistake again. The site is in alphabetical order so to find all the confessions is rather easy.

[DogIsYourName]

There is no smoking gun that will make you switch, just a slow accumulation of facts that point toward guilt.

Everyone has heard that you can put a frog in a pot of water, set the water to boil, and the frog will eventually die without trying to jump out of the pot.  The reason is, the water heats up so gradually that the frog never detects the temperature change.

I think it's an appropriate analogy for how many people feel about Jessie's confessions and other evidence in the case.  At first, everyone comes to the case with the notion that there was one confession full of leading questions and completely inaccurate details.  At that point, the water is room temperature, and you disregard the confessions completely.  But as you research, you start learning things about the confessions: a) there were very many of them, b) the details that match the other evidence, c) Jessie isn't retarded, etc. etc.... It all just slowly builds, and I think you end up with a bunch of supporters swimming around in boiling water still completely ignoring key evidence -- just like the frog.

[7718billy]

I have a few more comments on this post. 

I base my opinion on my own knowledge and experience specifically working with the FBI and CIA.  Many professional interrogators attempt to ask open ended questions and get the subject to give a narrative as its been found to be more accurate and conclusive than asking leading and manipulating questions.  More so if the subject has been pressured.   This is why torture has raised many doubts about its effectiveness.  I'm by no means saying Misskelly was tortured at least physically but there are many ways to mind fuck someone to the point they will say anything to get you to stop doing what you are doing. Once you break someone they are done, they will continue to say what you want them to say.


First that wasn't the case, as he was only in the police station for a few hours when he started his confession.

What wasn't the case? He wasn't mind fucked?

Third, you presume that Misskelly's low IQ makes him susceptible yet all you have is the little bit of info you got from supporter boards and Callahan, yet the kid was street smart, been in trouble with the law before and knew how it works...

Here is my little bit of info that I did not get from the supporters board.
 
http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/False%20Confession%20Research%20.htm

http://directory.leadmaverick.com/Helping-Psychology/DallasFort-WorthArlington/TX/10/5809/index.aspx

http://www.trowbridgefoundation.org/docs/suggestibility.htm

http://www.enforcergraphics.com/jun97.htm

http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/kassin_sukel_1997.pdf

I found these from:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=confession+from+suspects+with+a+low+IQ&start=10&sa=N&fp=a7d7ab29d0c8bbb9




Until you can prove to me you have more inside knowledge of Misskelly than some of the people who are far more knowledgeable, your argument will not hold any weight here. 

Still don't think my argument holds any weight?  Probably not, but do not really expect you to. 

With the confessions not withstanding I do think there is a reasonable argument to be made for the WM3 guilt and I certainly respect this opinion.  However, I no longer have an opinion on guilt or innocence.  I think I could argue both sides effectively though.  If the police would of been more effective I may have been able to reach a reliable conclusion.  I'll keep reading but the key aspects of the case will never change and a definitive answer to guilt/innocence will never be found in my opinion, even with a new trial.  Thanks for everyone who helped me with some of the facts and other things, it was enlightening.  Its a sad even that is tragic, disgusting, horrible and any other negative adjective you want to use and I hope it is never repeated.  I also hope those boys memories will last forever no matter what opinion you have on the WM3.

[7718billy]

Billy, you remind me of me when I got interested in this case many years ago.  There is no smoking gun that will make you switch, just a slow accumulation of facts that point toward guilt.

Everyone has heard that you can put a frog in a pot of water, set the water to boil, and the frog will eventually die without trying to jump out of the pot.  The reason is, the water heats up so gradually that the frog never detects the temperature change.

I think it's an appropriate analogy for how many people feel about Jessie's confessions and other evidence in the case.  At first, everyone comes to the case with the notion that there was one confession full of leading questions and completely inaccurate details.  At that point, the water is room temperature, and you disregard the confessions completely.  But as you research, you start learning things about the confessions: a) there were very many of them, b) the details that match the other evidence, c) Jessie isn't retarded, etc. etc.... It all just slowly builds, and I think you end up with a bunch of supporters swimming around in boiling water still completely ignoring key evidence -- just like the frog.

Its funny as you post this as I posted my previous comment.  Those confessions are pretty damning though if they are true.  A few things stuck out at me for guilt was the "confession" MissKelly gave to the transport cops.  Not sure if I buy it or not but it was rather descriptive and more believable in the narrative form than the Q&A of the first two.  The hair from Echol's and fibers was also rather damaging to the support cause.  However, it cant be determined to what extent it can belong to another person.  Same with the fibers, no quantitative assessment can be made and it leaves the interpretation of value subjective. 

[Farm]

What are yo suggesting or implying with this comment?  Doesn't explain why no other forensic/physical evidence linking any WM3 to the scene.  What should I make of that?

It's not that complicated.

You insist there should have been more physical evidence on the victims.

There wasn't - so either you are wrong, or the crime didn't take place.

And the crime took place.

Really, how many other hairs made the journey?  Are you suggesting many hairs were on this poor kids body but only one was able to be recovered?

Here's one difference between you and I - I don't have to "suggest' anything.

I can state as a fact that many more hairs were recovered - I can even state as a fact that another hair was recovered from the same lace as the "Hobbs" hair, and the Defense opted not to test it.

I can do these things because unlike yourself, I know what I'm talking about.

Again, I don't completely dismiss this theory, but for others to assume its the only way these hair could of got to this scene is rather biased and screams of lack of objectivity.

Or perhaps you simply aren't as bright as you would like people to believe?

Can you point to testimony where some suggest how long these attacks occurred?

Yes, I can.

Brief or not the nature of the attacks seem to be very physical which one would lead to further evidence being left.

But then, you wouldn't know, as you have no idea how much evidence was actually recovered.

If you don't think Misskelly was at extraordinarily impressionable and easy to manipulate then I have serious doubts to your own ability to objectivity interpret that confession.
 
If you DO think this was the case, then you are a puppet, as any evidence to support this was soundly refuted on every level.

Doesn't get any simpler than that.

I don't completely dismiss the circumstantial evidence,

Of course you do.

however the lack of physical/forensics is really a compelling reason to raise reasonable doubts.

But again, you wouldn't have a clue, as you have no idea what evidence even exists.

No this is not what I' saying

Yes, it's EXACTLY what you're saying.

if you believe this it is yet again demonstrated by you that you lack objectivity and an rationale mind to make an informed decision or thought.

I don't know how to break this to you, but it's YOU who's here proclaiming the innocence of these convicted child murderers when it's painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this case.

I'm positive your going to start cussing and calling me names in a short while. I hope this is not the case but, I've seen your track record.  Now that's a novel approach.  

You probably missed it, but I already pointed out what a brain-dead dickweed you were on the other board, when you proclaimed your spoonfed belief that Terry Hobbs was responsible for the crime.

So you can have the last word, as I'm not going to engage in a flame war. 

Yet two pages later you are simpering and whining on....

It's almost as if you really have no control of yourself.

[7718billy]

What are yo suggesting or implying with this comment?  Doesn't explain why no other forensic/physical evidence linking any WM3 to the scene.  What should I make of that?

It's not that complicated.

You insist there would have to have been more physical evidence on the victims.

There wasn't - so either you are wrong, or the crime didn't take place.

And the crime took place.

Really, how many other hairs made the journey?  Are you suggesting many hairs were on this poor kids body but only one was able to be recovered?

Here's one difference between you and I - I don't have to "suggest' anything.

I can state as a fact that many more hairs were recovered - I can even state as a fact that another hair was recovered from the same lace as the "Hobbs" hair, and the Defense opted not to test it.

I can do these things because unlike yourself, I know what I'm talking about.

Again, I don't completely dismiss this theory, but for others to assume its the only way these hair could of got to this scene is rather biased and screams of lack of objectivity.

Or perhaps you simply aren't as bright as you would like people to believe?

Can you point to testimony where some suggest how long these attacks occurred?

Yes, I can.

Brief or not the nature of the attacks seem to be very physical which one would lead to further evidence being left.

But then, you wouldn't know, as you have no idea how much evidence was actually recovered.

If you don't think Misskelly was at extraordinarily impressionable and easy to manipulate then I have serious doubts to your own ability to objectivity interpret that confession.
 
If you DO think this was the case, then you are a puppet, as any evidence to support this was soundly refuted on every level.

Doesn't get any simpler than that.

I don't completely dismiss the circumstantial evidence,

Of course you do.

however the lack of physical/forensics is really a compelling reason to raise reasonable doubts.

But again, you wouldn't have a clue, as you have no idea what evidence even exists.

No this is not what I' saying

Yes, it's EXACTLY what you're saying.

if you believe this it is yet again demonstrated by you that you lack objectivity and an rationale mind to make an informed decision or thought.

I don't know how to break this to you, but it's YOU who's here proclaiming the innocence of these convicted child murderers when it's painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this case.

I'm positive your going to start cussing and calling me names in a short while. I hope this is not the case but, I've seen your track record.  Now that's a novel approach.  

You probably missed it, but I already pointed out what a brain-dead dickweed you were on the other board, when you proclaimed your spoonfed belief that Terry Hobbs was responsible for the crime.

So you can have the last word, as I'm not going to engage in a flame war. 

Yet two pages later you are simpering and whining on....

It's almost as if you really have no control of yourself.

I almost want to make you look like a dick, but you do a good enough job your self for me to even bother.  Further, I could make you look foolish over and over again with the comments you've made in the past but again its just not worth my time.  You insult people and attack with your opinions which in my mind have just as much weight at a cockroach, if that. With that said, you can have your club house back, audios.

[Farm]

I could make you look foolish over and over again with the comments you've made in the past but again its just not worth my time.

Didn't Bender say something like that in Breakfast club?

"I would fight you, but I'd kill you, and then your parents would sue me and there would be this big hassle and I don't care enough about you to bother..."

You're a joke, Billy.

[auburnesq]

Well, If you notice, I'm asking you a question.  I'm doing this to establish what your personal belief is.  I really don't understand this question and why you asked it.  Will you state your personal opinion?  It seems to me that you are only attacking me and my opinion. 

I asked because you based your question on the assumption of my belief. My personal opinion is irrelevant. I think perhaps you don't understand the difference between asking you to substantiate your opinion and attacking you.

Your right they are just as you opinion, (I assume as you haven't stated yet)that its the investigator did not use manipulation or extraordinary leading questions. 

What I belief is irrelevant. Do you have evidence that Jessie was coerced?
 

Yes or no? Did the investigator ask leading questions?  Yes or no?  Did the investigator ask manipulative questions? You will say no, no matter what evidence I could show you that those questions are in fact extraordinarily manipulative and leading, consequently bringing in question the veracity of the confession. 

Manipulative and leading is not the same as coerced. If you have evidence that he was coerced, the confession is of course suspect.

I have admitted that the confession could be an honest statement but based on the fact  the investigator asked such inappropriate and grossly prejudicial questions It leaves me to doubt its veracity.  However, it seems you don't or won't take in account the manner in which the statement was procured in your assessment of validity.

Because you have presented no evidence that the confessions were coerced.

My opinion still stands that the first two confessions are not valid based on how the police conducted the interview as you can not ascertain the veracity based on the questions asked.

And the fact still remains that your critique of the questions does not equate to coercion.

They very well may past muster for legal proceedings, however in reality out side of law and my self knowledge about interrogation techniques I find them of little informative value.

But do you have any evidence thereof?

So it only has to be one?  Is this the point you are attempting to make with this statement?  Are you saying someone can not be coerced and manipulated at the same time?

Open to suggestion is different from manipulation. And yes, open to suggestion and coercion are mutually exclusive. Open to suggestion implies that you are naive, vulnerable or gullible. Coercion implies force. When someone is coerced, they act out of fear. If you are fearful, how can you be "open" to anything?

The problem is I don't have to try at all to discredit the confession, the police did a good enough job of that when they conducted the interview.  Again, the confession could of been a honest one from Misskelly but the way the police went about it was just plain stupid and opens the door to challenges.

The problem is that you haven't even attempted to discredit it, you simply dismissed it because you don't think they asked the questions they way they should have. If you can't provide evidence that the confession was coerced, then it's just you saying that you're right because you say you are.

Then state your opinion instead of attacking mine but the fact you are attacking mine suggest you don't agree with me consequently my statment about your position.

I don't agree with your underlying assumption that you can completely dismiss the confessions because you say so.

I disagree that it can only be a legal contextual debate. The court room as you know is not reality.  I wouldn't presume to know legalities.  However, I know how to form an objective opinion based on facts.  Weather those fact are inadmissible or admissible in court is trivial to me.  I search for truth based on facts, not what a court or jury decides.

If the court room isn't real, where do I go every day? If you are incapable of discussing a legal case in a legal capacity, perhaps you'd be more comfortable on a more touchy feely board.

I agree with this, but do you agree that the way the police interrogated Misskelly opened the door for questions of coercion and manipulation. If so can you prove he wasn't coerced or manipulated? Again not really concerned with law I am however concerned about what you can and cannot prove whether its in a court room or not.

Nope, I don't agree. You made the assertion that he was coerced. A statement is presumptively voluntary until proven otherwise. The burden is on you.

You know this was not what I was saying or implying.

No, what you implied was that I was dishonest for stating that most US cases are resolved based on circumstantial evidence.

Your example has conclusive physical evidence suggesting participation or least the victim was in contact with the suspect.

I guess I wasn't clear. He confessed. He confession contained a blatant lie. Yet, his confession is still valid. See, it can happen. I did not make a comparison of the quality of evidence of my client vs. Jessie. This was in direct response to your assertion that a defendant wouldn't lie if he confessed.

You must admit determining how that hair got to the scene can be rather subjective.  And truth be told I or you really cant prove anything.

No, noting subjective about it. Speculative perhaps, but not subjective.

What I mean by un-objective is several people have no doubts or even think its possible that hair could of gotten their any other way but secondary transfer. When in fact no one knows really how that hair could of have gotten there, there are many potential explanations.

  Occam's razor

I have worked with almost all three letter organizations.

Then you should know better.

I'm by no means saying Misskelly was tortured at least physically but there are many ways to mind fuck someone to the point they will say anything to get you to stop doing what you are doing. Once you break someone they are done, they will continue to say what you want them to say. 

So are the police incompetent or genius? I mean if you can mind fuck someone to the point of submission in that short of time, they must be far ahead of the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security and could probably teach you a thing or two about interrogations.

Oh, and why the hell slag on sheer?

[flexj]

First that wasn't the case, as he was only in the police station for a few hours when he started his confession.
Second I disagree with the above quote as WE did get Intel that helped get some of the leaders of Al Qaeda.


Is this such a revelation or what relevance does you comment have on my argument? Besides that how many is a few, can you quantify this?

How many intelligence reports have you read where information has come from torture?  In fact, how many intelligence reports have you read.  How many intelligence report have you assessed?  Have you been able to compare and analyze intelligence reports veracity based on different interrogation techniques?   

I have an by no means am I an expert but rather have an intermediate understanding and eight years of experience analyzing human intelligence reports. Nor am I trying to bait you I simply am looking for information.    


Third, you presume that Misskelly's low IQ makes him susceptible, yet all you have is the little bit of info you got from supporter boards and Callahan, yet the kid was street smart, been in trouble with the law before and knew how it works.

You presume he isn't susceptible based on what?

If you believe his confession to be valid I respect that. However, if you believe he was not susceptible to manipulation or coercion based on IQ then I can not respect that.  I don't presume but rather know that people with a low IQ are impressionable and easily manipulated. Do I think he was?  I don't know but the way the police conducted the interview and the questions they asked indicates strong possibility. 

What evidence suggest he was street smart?  What evidence suggest he "knew how it works".  I would be happy to agree with you if this can be proven.


 
...Until you can prove to me you have more inside knowledge of Misskelly than some of the people who are far more knowledgeable, your argument will not hold any weight here. 

Again, I'm not trying to change your opinion but rather trying to extract information.  I find the best way to do this is to present a questions with what I think.  Most people are quick to want to prove someone wrong and will use facts to do this.  You however, haven't done this.  You obviously can't or won't be proven wrong because you have stead fast convictions, which it okay and respectable but please just don't attack my opinion as wrong with out valid rebuttal that includes information why you don't agree.  In other word this post I am responding to suggest that I'm wrong but and the only reason you give is your opinion that I'm wrong.    You said I'm using information from the supporters board.   I've used only my opinions and facts from callahans, I would like you to post where I've copied, quoted, or or otherwise made reference to supporters board or someone else's opinion/thoughts?  Let me save you the trouble of searching....I didn't





I

It is because of your insinuating statement that the WMPD were guilty of misconduct and I disagree and I wanted to call you on that.

As far as Intelligence reports go, Well That Information is TOP SECRET and if I told I would have to..well you know the rest..lol

But what I find very curious is that you first initial post I was led to believe that you were new to this and needed help in finding documentation.

Now I see that you have been around as Farm pointed out and I think your fricking pathetic. 

[Farm]

If I had a dollar for every one of these dweebs who pretended to be "objective", I would set up a flash media server and host live video here.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to tolerate an asshole who accuses Terry of the murders - yet doesn't even know when Misskelley confessed.

It's not even entertainng.

[7718billy]

I was not going to respond anymore, but I was bored

"Do you have evidence that Jessie was coerced?"

When did I say he was coerced?  I've only implied the possibility existed.  You can search all my previous post, but I've already did to make sure I did not write this. 


 
Manipulative and leading is not the same as coerced. If you have evidence that he was coerced, the confession is of course suspect.

Obviously their is no evidence of Misskelley being coerced and again I never said he was.  However several things about the interview lead me to believe that a possibility exist.  I've gone over and over why I think this. If you disagree with my methods or opinion in coming to this opinion I understand.  But stop implying that I'm saying he was coerced.  In fact I'll concede he wasn't coerced as its not the crux of my belief of the confession being invalid in determining guilt or innocence in my own mind. 

I have admitted that the confession could be an honest statement but based on the fact  the investigator asked such inappropriate and grossly prejudicial questions It leaves me to doubt its veracity.  However, it seems you don't or won't take in account the manner in which the statement was procured in your assessment of validity.

Because you have presented no evidence that the confessions were coerced.

Again, I only speculated that the possibility existed. You keep focusing on the coercing argument all you want, if you notice most of my post in regards to the confession are the manner it was conducted. Here is the fact:

A 17 year old with a IQ indicating limited intelligence confessed while the policed used leading and manipulating questions.  (Is this not a fact?)

Based on independent psychology studies that linked previously and my own experience I believe that a person with limited intelligence and young age such as Misskelly are prone to manipulation and suggestion.  According to several mental health reports I've read Misskelley fits the profile of someone who could be easily manipulated into giving a false confession. 

Based on that, in Misskelley first two confessions the investigation asked several manipulative and leading questions.     Again, making the confession invalid in my mind I give damn if a court accepts it or not. I would believe that confession if the questions were framed differently and the more manipulative questions omitted. 


And the fact still remains that your critique of the questions does not equate to coercion. [/b]

Doesn't matter, the concern argument inst my main point of contention.  Your incessant desire to draw me into an argument that I'm not making is preposterous.  Again, as I've stated over and over again in other post and this, I'm only indicating the possibility exist, not that it occured.  I know what your are doing, you are trying to push or frame the argument to something you know you can win or prove, despite that fact I'm not arguing or what you want me to.  It was a nice try though.

They very well may past muster for legal proceedings, however in reality out side of law and my self knowledge about interrogation techniques I find them of little informative value.
[/quote

But do you have any evidence thereof?

I think I addressed this sufficiently above.  But will reiterate it.

Fact: Misskelly is of limited intelligence

Fact: Misskelly is 17 year old

Fact: The police asked manipulative and leading questions

I've linked previously three or four studies by independent sources that indicate that a person of Misskellys age and limited intellgience are prone to suggesting and manipulation.

Consequently reading the confession with the manipulative and leading questions contained there in along with the studies I've read I have formed a conclusion/opinion that Misskellys confession is not valid.  For me that's all the evidence I need.  I understand that many people may not come to this same conclusion.  I don't/haven't attack their opinions despite the your repeated attempt at mine.    However, because I don't believe the confession as valid that seems to piss people off even though I've expressed logically how I formed my opinion.  Again, I'm not trying to convince people what to believe, I merely was looking for information.   If you read all the post from start to end I've never attempted to try and change anyone's mind, rather most of them was to justify my own opinion in response to several posters who disagree with me.  After stating this over and over again, people only focus on what they want, picking and choosing which things to respond to completely ignoring other aspects of my comments. 


Open to suggestion is different from manipulation. And yes, open to suggestion and coercion are mutually exclusive. Open to suggestion implies that you are naive, vulnerable or gullible. Coercion implies force. When someone is coerced, they act out of fear. If you are fearful, how can you be "open" to anything?

We disagree, I believe a person can be coerced and manipulated or open to suggestion (if you want to play the semantic game).  I think that's the point of coercion and manipulation to make you say something you ordinarily would say.  I wonder why terrorist when they have a US captive beat and torture the captive until they make a disloyal statement.



The problem is that you haven't even attempted to discredit it, you simply dismissed it because you don't think they asked the questions they way they should have. If you can't provide evidence that the confession was coerced, then it's just you saying that you're right because you say you are.

No not true, I can point to other post that I've made where I've provided support of my opinions for my belief.  What it seems is you dont accept the basis of my opinion, even though I've provided studies and pointed to certain asepcts that led me to my opinion that are all fact.

Once again:

Fact: Misskelly is a 17 y/o with limited intelligence.

Fact: Several studies indicate that a 17 y/o person with limited intelligence can be open to manipulation and leading questions consequently making them give false confessions.

Fact: The police asked several manipulating and leading questions in the first two interviews

Opinion:  Because the police asked several manipulating and leading questions to a 17 y/o with limited intelligence I've formed and opinion based on several studies and the questions that were asked, consequently making the confession in my mind invalid. 

D you just not agree with my opinion or am I presenting an opinion with out any basis again?


 I've also exhaustively explained it in this one as well, but will do it again.  I'm not understanding how you don't comprehend the basis of my opinion.  I've provided links even to the studies I've read.  Because you don't believe the same thing doesn't mean mine is any less valid.   

Fact:  Misskelly was a 17 y/o and of limited intelligence. 

Fact: Several studies indicate that a 17 y/o of limited intelligence is susceptible to manipulation and leading questions. 

Does this clearly state what I'm basing my opinion on?  Or am I writing it just because I think it agian?


If the court room isn't real, where do I go every day? If you are incapable of discussing a legal case in a legal capacity, perhaps you'd be more comfortable on a more touchy feely board.

I actual laughed out loud when I read this.   Obviously you read my comments at it literal meaning.  I honestly thought you were smarter than that.  I could care less where you go.  To be honest I never wanted to or have discussed this case in a legal capacity as that has no interest to me.  I wanted to read the information and form my own opinion, as I stated in my opening post.  You, sir, are trying to push this to a legal argument, one that I don't want.  Your next post is going to suggest that I don't want it because I cant make that argument.  Which is correct, I'm not lawyer, nor am I trying to be one. I'm merely investigating a horrific and controversial crime and trying to form an opinion. 

You however it seems feels that you must look at this case in a legal perspective, which I  disagree with.  That limits a persons perspective and forcing them to look at everything through a certain perspective thus limiting other avenues of discovery. 

An example of this is Ofshe's testimony. If you were looking at it with just a legal perspective, you cannot take into an account the lack of creditability it was discovered he had as it was never presented in court.

Nope, I don't agree. You made the assertion that he was coerced. A statement is presumptively voluntary until proven otherwise. The burden is on you. [/i]

Point to where I asserted he was coerced? Again, I never stated it but merely thought the possibility existed.   For a lawyer you don't read, interpret, or comprehend very well. You can keep trying to get me to make this argument but your continually going to fail.  It's rather annoying when people such as your self try and twist the argument/debate to something its not.  But there will be several post agreeing with you and you assertion that I think he was coerced and I"m just another "supporter" who is clueless despite nothing to indicate this.  Just as many have before in this thread.  Objective people you have here, huh? 


No, what you implied was that I was dishonest for stating that most US cases are resolved based on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence that physical evidence supports.  You do get an A+ for spin though.

 No, noting subjective about it. Speculative perhaps, but not subjective.


Your right, speculative is probably a better word. However subjective still applies.


Subjective:  pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

But you will probably argue the definition I provided.

Then you should know better.

I do but because I have a different opinion you think I should know better.  Making this comment, then making an assumption about me dismissing something with out anything to support it is actually comical.  You have no basis to dismiss my knowledge or experience.  But you seem to dismiss it merely becasue you don't agree with it.  That is real objective is it not?

So are the police incompetent or genius? I mean if you can mind fuck someone to the point of submission in that short of time, they must be far ahead of the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security and could probably teach you a thing or two about interrogations.

As several studies suggest it's not hard to mind fuck someone who is 17 y/o with a limited intelligence.  It's akin to manipulating a child, but according to you, you have to be a genius to do that when contrary its rather easy and simple. This is why when a subject come in that is young and limited intelligence the interrogators do not approach him the way the WMPD approached Misskelly.  They use different methods. 

Here is why.  If we captured a terrorist with similarities as Misskelley (which we have) then asked him manipulating and misleading questions the veracity of the information would, should an has been called into question.   You don't want to drop a bomb on innocent people so the truthfulness and accuracy is much more valuable than the quantity of information.  In other words we dont get them to talk just to talk, we want substantive information.  You don't do this by asking manipulating and leading question ot someone such as Misskelly.


If you want to keep pressing the coercion argument, keep doing it but I'm not interested. In fact I will/have conceeded the point even though I think the possibility still exist that he was coerced.  Your going to respond that I'm conceding it becasue I cant prove it......Which is partly true, but it was never my main point of contention in dismissing the confession, as I've stated in this post and others over and over and over again.  But you seem to point to this one issue over and over and over again, ironically assuming I've stated that in fact he was coerced even though I did not. 


 

[7718billy]

It is because of your insinuating statement that the WMPD were guilty of misconduct and I disagree and I wanted to call you on that.


I did not insinuate the WMPD were guilty of any thing, I merely stated the possibility existed.  I did say they were incompetent and I stand by that.  I don't mean that as an insult to the WMPD as I dont think they had the capabilities to handle a situation such what occurred an it showed.

As far as Intelligence reports go, Well That Information is TOP SECRET and if I told I would have to..well you know the rest..lol

There is nothing that says you can not state what type of documents you have read.  What you cannot do is disclose the method the information was obtained and/or the information contained their in.

But what I find very curious is that you first initial post I was led to believe that you were new to this and needed help in finding documentation.

You would imply that I cannot learn over a few days? I'm fortunate to have a job that gives me a great deal of free time. Ironically, not much information helped me here as I did find that most of the time spent on this forum was defending my opinion rather than getting information.  My sifting through Callahan's database was much more fruitful.  Consequently, reinforcing my initial opinion of this forum which was a general lack of objectivity and willingness to help.  Further, the information I did read about led to me not really believing guilt or innocence where as my first thoughts were of innocence.  I think they did it but not beyond a reasonable doubt. 





Now I see that you have been around as Farm pointed out and I think your fricking pathetic.

Not surprising and further indication of you own biased and lack objectivity.  Anyone who agrees or even read's the post that internet nut job makes, leads me to devalue their opinion. 

[7718billy]

I must retract the comment I made about Hobb's and my belief he is guilty although I still believe its possible he was responsible though.