West Memphis Three - how can anyone overlook Jessie's confessions?
So about a year ago, I went through a brief a phase of being obsessed with the WM3 case after binging through Paradise Lost and West of Memphis. Those docs mostly had me convinced of their innocence, but it only takes a bit of additional research to learn that the case is far more complex than they implied. This week, for some reason, I started thinking about the case again. I decided to see what the opinion was on this sub, and from what I can gather - most people currently embrace the theory is that it was Terry Hobbs (stepfather of one of the victims). While I certainly understand that, and on paper he makes a much more logical perpetrator, there's one issue that has always made me suspect the WM3's guilt, and often overrides any other factors: Jessie's confessions.
The legend around the WM3 is that Jessie Miskelley was tricked into a confession by the local police, and anything he said should be dismissed as the scared ramblings of a mentally retarded teen. But anyone who has researched the case knows that he also confessed several times after this, in ways that cannot possibly be dismissed as coercion.
Let's go through all the documented times that Jessie spoke about the case (all of which are available here).
June 3, 1993: The first confession, to local detectives. Admittedly there are times when it seems like his answers are manipulated, but there are also times when Jessie sticks to his word regardless and times when the detectives accept his answers.
August 19, 1993: Jessie meets with his defence attorneys. They make clear that he'll be going to prison for a long time, possibly for life, and discuss plea bargaining options. He goes over some details again and doesn't retract anything, even though he's plainly told the consequences and says he understands. Why wouldn't he use this opportunity to get his lawyers on his side, if indeed he was innocent?
December 10, 1993: Now Jessie tells his attorneys that the confession was made up. It makes sense to me that he would change his mind at this point: he's been in prison for 5 months, he's probably realising "this sucks actually", and he knows he has a trial coming up. Interestingly, the attorneys try to shape Jessie's words in a very similar manner to the detectives - they constantly ask if he was treated badly, if they made him tell the story over and over, if they stopped and restarted the tape, etc...It's like they're getting Jessie to confirm their planned defence.
December 15, 1993: Jessie talks with a doctor, and maintains that he wasn't in the woods and fabricated the confession by following the detectives' lead. But he certainly remembers a lot of details from his apparently fake confession 5 months earlier.
February 5, 1994: Immediately after his trial and conviction, Jessie confesses in the police car on the drive to the prison. It's like he's realised "Okay fine, I've lost now so I may as well be honest again". Presumably he can't deal with the guilt.
February 8, 1994: This one is the true unavoidable, for me. Jessie gives a full confession, in private, to his own defence lawyers.
STIDHAM: Okay. Jessie, a few minutes ago I asked you about making some statements to the Officers when they transported you from Piggott to Pine Bluff. You told me that you had told them some stuff. Is that Correct?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
STIDHAM: And at first you told me that you were just making it up, that you were lying to them, and then you placed your hand on the Bible and told me that you were there when these boys got killed.
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
STIDHAM: Uh, what's the truth, Jessie? I want to know the truth.
MISSKELLEY: The truth is, me and Jason and Damien done it.
STIDHAM: You were there when the boys were killed?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
STIDHAM: Now, what's going to be very important is for you to tell me why it was that you have been maintaining that you weren't there all this time?
MISSKELLEY: I was scared.
STIDHAM: what were you scared of?
MISSKELLEY: I always lied and I hadn't ever put my hand on the Bible and swore. Nobody didn't tell me to do that. If they would have told me that at first, I would have done it. Nobody told me to put my hand on the Bible.
STIDHAM: Okay. So basically, you've been lying to me and Mr. Crow for the past seven, or so months - about not being there when in fact you were there?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
..Why would he possibly say this if he was innocent?! What was there to gain? There's no reward money, no need to placate the police, no extra media attention...?
February 17, 1994: Jessie confesses again, this time with the prosecuting lawyers present. His own lawyers practically beg him not to say anything but Jessie says he "wants something to be done".
February 21, 1994: Jessie speaks to one of his lawyers on the phone. He doesn't retract anything. He says he can't decide whether or not to testify in Damien and Jason's trial because he's scared.
Now seriously, I ask you, how can we ignore all this? Whatever else may be unclear, contradictory, or suspicious about the case...How can these later confessions be explained away? Legitimate question - does anyone feel that they can comfortably ignore these? Can you continue to suspect Terry Hobbs?
Some points:
While the confessions may not be perfectly consistent or in line with what was indicated by the autopsies, every confession has essentially the same structure, from the first to the one with his lawyers 8 months later: They were drinking in the woods, they heard the kids nearby, he and Jason hid, Damien called them over, Damien attacked one and then the other kids started hitting him, he and Jason emerged and attacked one boy each, he grabbed Michael Moore who managed to run away until he caught him (and indeed, Michael was found in a different spot), Damien had a stick that he hit them with, Jason had a knife and cut at one boy's penis, D+J performed (or simulated) sexual things, they tied the boys up and threw them in the water, then Jessie left before the others and didn't see what they did with the clothes or the bikes, and he vomited on the way home. This is always the story he tells, even if there are slight differences in detail. If he wasn't really there, would he have such a clear story in his mind?
Any of those errors and inconsistencies seem quite explainable to me when you consider that he was drunk on whiskey, and wouldn't have been looking closely at what the other two were doing if he had to run after Michael and was then attacking him from further away. He probably had a vague idea and that's it. He also clearly has no shame embellishing his stories and just saying thing to trick people (he admits this), which yes, makes it difficult to know what to believe but...still.
Jessie was/is pretty slow and naive, no doubt about that, but the "mental retardation" thing has been overstated. Before the murders, he apparently had an IQ test with a score of 88, which is actually categorised as "average". It was only before his trial that it dropped down to 72, presumably a dumbing down to help his defence, and even that score is only below average. You can tell from videos, testimonies and transcripts that he's not an innocent, dumb child in a man's body. He also had a history of violence and crime.
The main arguments against the WM3's guilt seems to be 1) lack of motive, and 2) lack of physical evidence. But unfortunately it's a reality that people are capable of random acts of horrific violence against children - even perpetrated by other children (you only need to look at the awful James Bulger Murder for proof that). It's feasible that this is all it was. As for the latter, there was hardly any physical evidence period. The crime scene was wet and muddy, and the initial investigation was by all accounts very poor.
Finally, maybe if one of the three suspects had a solid alibi it would be possible to shrug-off Jessie's confessions as a bizarre bid for attention or something, but the reality is - none of them can demonstrate where they were that night to disprove his story.
To be clear - I'm fully aware of how utterly messy, contradictory, and vague this case is, and I don't want to be one of the many stubborn, opinionated people on both sides who refuse to look at it objectively. I'm just saying that for me, the confessions are MAJOR and I really struggle to see past them.
It's disturbing to think that the WM3 may have duped everyone, and could now be living a free life pretending they never committed this awful crime. Well, either that or the killer(s) are still at large and doing the same. Both options make me feel sick. Those poor little boys.
Anyone interested in the case, please share your thoughts. I'm very open to discussion.