There are two ways to find someone guilty of a crime:
1. Direct Evidence: Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.
Evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes that fact.
Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.
Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.
Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
An example of a successful conviction based on circumstantial evidence is the Scott Peterson trial. No direct evidence links Scott Peterson to his wife Laci and unborn son's death, but a ton of circumstantial evidence does link him to the murders. As a matter of fact, the only piece of forensic evidence identified was a single hair, thought to have been Laci's, found in a pair of pliers from Peterson's boat.
So when a defendant's attorney claims that there is no forensic evidence linking their client to a crime, it doesn't by rule mean that the client is innocent. In fact, they can still be found guilty by deductive reasoning.
What is deductive reasoning?
Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true.
Now that we understand the methods in how Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Miskelley were found guilty, let's go into how it was put together. In addition, I will use other indicators outside the case and trial to further prove the guilt of Echols, Baldwin, and Miskelley.
Jessie Miskelley
On June 3rd of 1993, Jessie was brought to the West Memphis Police Station at 10:00am for questioning. Jessie knew Damien Echols, who was suspected of being involved in murdering the three victims, and the police were questioning anyone who knew him.
 |
| Jessie Miskelley - Mug Shot |
Jessie heard a rumor that Damien and Robert Burch killed Michael Moore, Steve Branch, and Christopher Byers. He said he didn't know Burch very well, but knew Damien. He introduced Damien to Vicki Hutcheson. He went on to describe Damien's close relationship with Jason Baldwin. He said that they were always together and that Damien also had a pregnant girlfriend named Domini Teer. Jessie also said that he always saw Damien at local skating rink with friends Jason and another kid named Carl Smith.
Jessie attempted to distance himself from Damien by calling him sick and that he drank human blood. He made inconsistent statements about the last time he met or spoke to Damien. In one statement, he claimed it was three weeks and in another, it was two months.
Suspicion started to mount on Jessie. Jessie was asked if he'd take a polygraph test and he agreed.
After the polygraph test was conducted, Bill Durham told Bryan Ridge and Chief Inspector, Gary Gitchell, that Jessie was "Lying his ass off!"
The detectives pushed harder, knowing Jessie wasn't being truthful with them. They showed Jessie pictures of the three dead children and played a tape-recording of a boy who eerily said: ''Nobody knows what happened but me.'' After that, Jessie broke down and confirmed he was present during the murders and confessed. Jessie was interrogated for two and a half hours before confessing and not twelve hours as claimed by the filmmakers of the Paradise Lost series.
Jessie was either vague or incorrect about a lot of details in his first confession. He even lied multiple times about the timing of the murders. Essentially, he attempted to minimize his role. One piece he got right however was chasing down Michael Moore, who was tying to escape, and bringing him back to the scene of the crime. A statement that would be relevant since Moore was discovered farther away from Byers and Branch. Jessie's reason for lying about particular details were made known to Deputy Jon Moody and James Lindsey after Jessie was convicted.
According to Jon Moody in a letter to Chief Inspector Gary Gitchell:
On the afternoon of Feb. 4th 1994, Deputy James Lindsey and myself were transporting Jessie Miskelley to the Arkansas Department of Corrections at Pine Bluff. Jessie was asked if there was anything he wanted to say and after being assured we could not use anything he said against him in court, he chose to talk.
Jessie advised he had received a call from Jason Baldwin asking him if he wanted to go to West Memphis to "get some girls." Jessie, Damion, and Jason met on a local road on May 5th (sometime that evening). Jessie claimed that he had been drinking Evelyn Williams whiskey that Mrs. Hutchson had bought him and Jason and Damion were drinking beer. It was also stated that they had smoked two marijuana joints that afternoon. Jessie said that he had known Jason Baldwin since the 6th Grade and did not know Damion that well but that Damion would drink human blood remembering a time when Jason was bleeding and Damion took some of the blood with his finger and licked it off. Jessie stated that Officer Callahan had lied in Court about not seeing him on May 5th, Jessie claims they had a short conversation. After all meeting on the road, the three boys walked to the woods and were sitting in the water with Jason and Damion "going under," Jessie said he could not go under because of his ear problem.
The three young boys were seen from a distance when Damion told Jessie and Jason to hide. Jessie said they were hiding behind bushes when Damion grabbed Michael Moore. The two other young boys started hitting Damion trying to help their friend and that is when Jessie and Jason jumped out and helped Damion "beat them." Jessie advised he helped hold them and beat them but had no part in raping or killing them.
Jessie advised two of the boys were raped from behind before and after they were tied up and that Damion and Jason were taking turns with the two boys. Jessie said the boys were still alive at this time.
Jessie said the boys were kept quiet by putting hands over their mouths and that Jason and Damion had used "shirts" and that times their face was pushed down into the ground.
Jessie was asked how the boys were kept under control while being raped and not tied yet and he stated "They were like puppies, when you whoop a puppy and tell it to stay, it will." Jessie did say he had to catch Michael Moore but did not say at what point.
Jessie claims that the third boy was never raped but that he may have been the one that Damion took his penis and put it in his mouth (the young boys penis). Jessie said at one point Damion and Jason had one of the boys in a headlock with one he believed had his penis in the boys mouth while the other one had him from behind. Jessie said he did not mention the "ears" to the police, only a headlock. Jessie also mentioned that "sticks" had been used to beat the boys.
At one point, Jessie said that Jason had a "bucktype locking knife" and "cut it all off and threw it in the weeds" saying the boy was alive and tied at this point and that he was surprised blood did not get on him because blood went everywhere and he was about a "car length" away. Jessie said "they" threw him into the water and "he was still squirming around in the water" at which point he left. Jessie said he does not know what happened to the knife. Jessie said he believed the other two boys were not conscious when he left but were not in the water.
Jessie also stated that Jason called him "later" and asked him why he left and he told them he could not watch it any longer. He claims the only other contact with Jason and Damion were a couple of times at the skating rink but they were mad at him.
OTHER INFORMATION
Jessie claims his lawyers asked him if he was innocent and that he had lied to them.
Jessie said the boys had a clubhouse and that's why he thinks they were in the area.
When talking about the "meetings" they had, Jessie could remember about nine people showing up and at one particular meeting "Kent" was to bring a dog "as his treat," the dog was taken away in the woods where it was killed and skinned. The dog was brought back and cooked in something that looked like Crisco in a "washing machine type bucket." Jessie said he eat a little one time and got sick. "Kent" was to catch the dog at the trailer park and Jessie believed they had killed about four dogs altogether. Jessie said Jason and Damion would both have sex with Dominique at these meetings.
Jessie said he lied about the time and the rope to "trick the police and to see if they were lying."
Jessie says he feels the other boys tricked him into what he did.
Jessie claims he has felt sorry for what has happened and talks as if he wants to testify against the other boys so they will not go free and to help himself.
Jessie did say the photograph showed to him was a group picture of the boys "riding" their bycycles in front of a house.
The claims made by the officers would be validated by Jessie four days later when he confessed to his attorney Dan Stidham.
In total, Jessie confessed to police, his attorney, and the prosecutors a total of six times. These dates include June 3rd, June 11th, and August 19th of 1993 and February 4th, February 8th, and February 17th of 1994.
Buddy Lucas, Jessie's friend at the time, claimed that Jessie gave him a pair of shoes. Lucas said Jessie seemed bothered and claimed he beat up some people really bad, and seemed eager to get rid of the shoes. Lucas later recanted his statement.
There was a statement given by Michael Johnson, a cell mate of Jesse's. He claimed that Jessie confessed the crime to him. Johnson wrote a letter to prosecutor Brent Davis, claiming Jessie was a cold and morbid person and added that a nightgown was left at the scene. No nightgown was ever found.
An anonymous message board poster called "TrueRomance" claimed to be close to Jessie. She allegedly wrote him letters, talked on the phone, and visited him while he was in prison. She claimed that after awhile, she asked him point blank questions about the crime and he would give answers that would frighten her. Other "Non" websites and blogs will use these types of claims as evidence for Jessie's guilt, but the claims made by Lucas, Johnson, or "TrueRomance" cannot be substantiated. They are worth nothing, but shouldn't be used as proof of guilt.
Jessie stated repeatedly to police in confessions that he felt sorry for his role of the murders of Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers. Jessie said he cried multiple times due to the overwhelming amount of guilt. His statement would correlate with his father's girlfriend, Lee Rush.
Lee told several officers on June 3rd of 1993 that she woke up at night to the sound of Jessie crying loudly and uncontrollably. When she went into his room and asked him what was wrong, Jessie claimed it was because his girlfriend was moving to Florida. She stated his crying fits happened several times and she expressed doubt over the reason given to her. To Lee, Jessie was acting too strange. Below are Lee's statements. She is incorrectly referred to as Mrs. Miskelley.
Detective Charlie Dabbs Report
Detective Tony Anderson Report
Deputy Sheriff Howard Tankersley Report
It should be noted that Jessie's girlfriend, Susie Brewer, didn't move to Florida. Not during the time of the murders, the trials, or anytime after.
Jessie's alibi continued to change, if not by his own account, then by his father, Jessie Sr. Jesse Sr. was interviewed by news reporters days later after his son's arrest. A reporter from KAIT-TV asked him if his son could have been with Damien and Jason on the night of the murders. Jesse Sr. stated that was a possibility, but that his son didn't murder anyone. Jessie's father would later claim that his son was home and remembered seeing him at 7:15pm that night as he prepared to go wrestle. The timing of Jessie Sr's statement was challenged by his teacher, Gloria Wilson, at the alcohol safety class he attended for DWI violations. According to the teacher, class didn't get out until at least fifteen minutes to eight, making it impossible for Jesse Sr. to have seen Jessie Jr at 7:15pm.
The wrestling alibi would also prove false. Fred Revelle, pro-wrestler, gave a detailed account of what happened on the day of the murders. He claimed Jessie was with the wrestling crew that evening. One piece of the detailed statement that would debunk that claim involved a check and a receipt. Revelle stated he had to give $300.00 to a man named Charles Stone for a wrestling ring he purchased. Revelle claimed he wrote the check on May 5th of 1993, the day of the murderers, was given a receipt, and that the check was deposited the next day. That's what Fred Revelle said, but the the receipt was actually dated April 27th, a little over a week before the murders.
 |
| Rent Receipt |
In Jessie's last two confessions, he claimed he went wrestling after the murders. If he did, it certainly was after the murder.
Another piece of crucial information is the Evan Williams whiskey bottle Jessie had the evening of the murders. The whiskey bottle itself is not directly linked to the crime, but still plays an important role in the case to substantiate Jessie's involvement. Jessie told his attorney, Dan Stidham, that after the murders, he was mad at what Damien and Jason did to the three boys, especially he witnessed them mutilate Christopher Byers. Jessie stated that after he left, he smashed the Evan Williams whiskey bottle on an overpass between Wal-Mart and Lakeshore.
Here is a statement by prosecutor Brent Davis during the Echols/Baldwin hearing on February 22nd, 1994:
"To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, 'If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened.' At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.
We then take the bottle to a local liquor store where we proceeded to spend the better part of an hour matching the bottle with certain items, and lo and behold it matches with the brand name bottle Mr. Stidham had indicated that we should be looking for in the first place.
At that point Mr. Stidham says that wasn't good enough to convince him. Additional efforts were made. He then -- there was a week hiatus where there was no contact apparently."
Jessie stated that Vickie Hutcheson bought him the bottle of Evan Williams whiskey on the day of the murders and this would be verified by Vickie herself.
Jessie would confess, recant, and re-confess several times, before and after his trial. Ultimately, Jessie wouldn't testify in Damien and Jason's trial and maintained his innocence ever since. This is not the phenomena that WM3 supporters make it out to be. Ted Bundy confessed to over 100 murders, but would later recant. John Wayne Gacy would also confess to murders, but later recanted. Murderers have a tendency to do what is in their best interest or why else would they go to trial and if found guilty why would they appeal?
Jessie's low IQ score of 72 is often brought up to prove that he was tricked into a confession, but that isn't very relevant. Jessie's defense team gave him an IQ test and tried to depict Jessie as borderline mentally retarded. It should be noted that Dan Stidham, was upfront about the test and how a lower score could be beneficial to his client's case because it could possibly remove a death penalty sentence. Part of this discussion can be seen on Paradise Lost: The Childhood Murders At Robin Hood Hills. It's not out of the realm of possibility to assume that Jessie could have tried to score poorly on purpose. Something brought up during Dr. William Wilkins's cross-exanimation, the Doctor who scored Jessie.
Jessie's IQ score may not even reveal borderline mental retardation at all, but instead, a lack of effort on his part. In Mara Leveritt's book, Devil's Knot, page 70, Jessie stated that he did poorly in school and dropped out because he simply didn't care anymore. He figured he would be a mechanic like his father. What Jessie lacked in higher learning, he made up for in street smarts, especially when it came to understanding his Miranda Rights.
On February 5, 1994, Miskelley was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. The court sentenced him to life plus 40 years in prison.
It is without any doubt that Jessie Miskelley is guilty based on solid circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence of his confessions. The alibis made by Jessie, his father, and friends have been proven false to presumably try and protect him. Jessie placed himself at the crime and even though he wasn't initially truthful about all the details, he would offer relevant insight to what happened. It will never be known how involved Jessie was because of his attempts to minimize his involvement, but we know he was there, and at the very least, he was an accessory to murder.
On August 19th, 2011, Jessie, along with Damien and Jason, walked free after entering an Alford plea. A guilty plea where they can maintain their innocence, but admit that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict them.
 |
| CONVICTED! |
Click Here for Part 2!
