"Damien's a Good Kid"
On February 4th, 1994, after a trial lasting only eight days, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Michael Moore, and one count each of second-degree murder in the deaths of Christopher Byers and Steven Branch. He was given a life sentence plus twenty years for each second-degree count. To many it was an open and shut case. Misskelley confessed; the jury heard it on tape. A confession by the accused is probably the most powerful piece of evidence a prosecutor can offer at trial. It is particularly vital when the state has little else. In its opinion in Moran v Burbine, the United States Supreme Court stated, "Admissions of guilt are essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the laws." In another case, James v State, the court opined, "An accused person knowingly makes an acknowledgment that he or she committed or participated in the commission of the criminal act. This acknowledgment must be broad enough to comprehend every essential element necessary to make a case against the defendant." Whether or not Misskelley’s confession was broad enough is open to debate, but it surely did not "comprehend every essential element" of the crime. In fact, he couldn't seem to get a single detail correct without the "guidance" of his interrogators. Despite its many troublesome characteristics - exacerbated by the fact that so little of it was recorded either on paper, or tape - the power of his "confession", actually hearing the defendant admit his involvement, was enough for the jury to convict.
Following his conviction, there was a good deal of volleying back and forth on whether or not Jessie would testify at the Echols/ Baldwin trial in Jonesboro. In a series of legal maneuvers (that eventually resulted in a defense motion of prosecutorial misconduct), prosecutors Brent Davis and John Fogleman leaned on Misskelley to testify. Davis and Fogleman were encouraged by sheriff’s deputies who, while transporting Jessie from Clay County to Pine Bluff immediately following his conviction, "asked Jessie if he had anything he wanted to say." In the recounting of this, the "second Misskelley confession", we are asked to believe that the completely dejected eighteen-year-old we saw being placed into a squad car after trial, began to sing like a canary on his ride to prison. What better way for him to endear himself to his captors than by giving them details of the murder of three children, a crime he had plead "not guilty" to? Can we accept that Jessie inculpates himself so readily for the benefit of the two lackeys taking him to prison, after denying for the last eight months that he was ever at the crime scene? But it doesn't really matter. Judge Burnett denied the motion to dismiss, and Misskelley never did testify, steadfastly maintaining his innocence to this day.
SO WHAT’S IN A LOOK?
There is a scene in the first Paradise Lost film that has always intrigued me. Jessie and his very large family are waiting in what appears to be someone’s office for the verdict to be handed down. Big Jessie is on one side of the room, seated, and Shelby Misskelley is on the other side. In between is a gaggle of sisters, cousins, friends - I don’t know who all the people are, but they are there to try to keep Jessie’s sprits high as they await the return of the jury. Jessie complains that people in the gallery were heckling him, " 'Why are you always keeping your head down, Jessie?’ I was told to, that’s why." Shelby remarks that "if you had your head up and were looking around they’d have said something about that, so it really don’t matter." Big Jessie adds, "Just like they’re saying about Damien, always twisting his neck around." Then, out of the blue, Jessie’s sister, who is standing immediately to his right wearing a yellow ribbon on her sweater, says, "Oh, Damien’s a good kid." Jessie whips around to face her with a look that says, "Are you crazy?" She quickly backs down, saying, "I guess, I don’t know", as Shelby chimes in, "I don’t know Damien." What did this exchange mean? Ever since first noticing it, I couldn’t get it out of my mind. I’m not a big believer in body language interpretation, but this meant something. But what?
Could it mean that Jessie, at that point in time, believed that Damien was guilty of the murders, as in "He’s the one who got me into this mess"? And could that mean, "He got me into this mess by talking me into coming with him that day", or, alternately, "If I hadn’t said I was there with him, I wouldn’t be here right now"? If only we had a recording, transcript, some good notes, or even some not-so-good notes - anything - of the interrogation on June 3rd, rather than the selected snippets the police saved, we wouldn’t have to guess and resort to things like trying to read body language. We don’t have these things, however; the WMPD apparently wasn’t able to pull off this rudimentary step in the prescriptive interviewing process. In my second home state of Connecticut (New York is my first, Virginia my third), there was a case in 1973 where an eighteen-year-old came home one day to find that his mother had been murdered. The police, rather than begin an investigation, began a "marathon" interrogation of Peter Reilly, the height of which was a polygraph examination. "The charts tell us you killed your mother, Pete", he was told (read, "he’s lying his ass off!") "Aren’t those things ever wrong?", he asked. The examiner told him, "The machine is never wrong, only the operator, and I’ve been doing this for twelve years without an error." Peter Reilly was convicted of manslaughter, remaining free on an appeal bond, before the new prosecutor (the previous one had died) discovered crucial exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from the defense. The case against Reilly was dismissed. A key factor in the dismissal of the charges was that the grilling he had undergone at the hands of the Connecticut state police had been completely taped. What a concept. Police tried, unsuccessfully, to build a new case against Reilly, unable to admit that they had made a mistake the first time.
Richard Lapointe was not so lucky. In another Connecticut case, Lapointe was convicted of the rape and murder of eighty-eight-year-old Bernice Martin, his wife’s grandmother. After the crime, allegedly set her apartment on fire. For two years following the murder, there were no solid leads. Police decided it was time to get a confession from someone. Although he had no history of violence, the police zeroed in on Lapointe as a suspect because he would periodically ask police if they had caught anyone yet. He had an alibi for the time of the murder, an alibi that police ironically taped during an interview with Lapointe’s wife. He had other, more serious problems, however. Lapointe was born with "Dandy-Walker" syndrome, a birth defect in which the sufferer is born with part of the cerebellum missing, causing poor motor coordination and problems with "cognition of a higher order." Although his intelligence is measured at 92 - low normal - Richard Lapointe lacks any sense of social intelligence, and posseses an extreme vulnerability to the type of psychological pressure brought to bear during a police interrogation - nine grueling hours in Lapointe’s case - during which time he signed three confessions, all pre-written for him by police. He would sign, recant, sign, recant . . . does any of this sound familiar? These confessions, when introduced in court, contained "such inconsistencies and contradictions at to make one conclusion inescapable. He said what the police wanted him to say. Lapointe has been in prison for twenty-one years.* It doesn’t require much deductive reasoning to conclude that the police didn’t want the bulk of the nine-hour interrogation of Richard Lapointe open to public scrutiny.
There is another nagging question about Jessie Misskelley’s statements. Twice during his February 27th statement - the infamous "third confession" that prompted his filing a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct - Jessie was advised against making any statement to the prosecution (once each by Greg Crow and Dan Stidham.) He had been taken under court order by sheriff’s deputies to the office of attorney Joe Calvin in Rector, Arkansas, at which time prosecutor Brent Davis began taking his statement about the night of the murders. Davis was preparing to offer him a grant of use immunity in return for his testimony at the Echols/Baldwin trial. In fact, Judge Burnett granted immunity to Misskelley that night. Jessie then gave his third, contorted statement, with some details changing and some staying the same. There was much heated dialog between the attorneys, and at one point Burnett was called at home. "Y'all were asking me to make a ruling from my den where I was watching TV in my underwear", he recalled, "and you popped all this on me where everybody was angry with each other . . ." The issue at hand was whether or not Davis had the right to have Misskelley transported from prison to give a statement without approval from his attorneys. Burnett eventually ruled that once a defendant has been convicted, the state can talk to him pretty much whenever they want to, especially since Greg Crow had been made aware - after the fact - that Jessie was on his way to Rector to talk. Shortly after that very weird session in Joe Calvin’s office, Misskelley decided once and for all that he would maintain his innocence and proceed with his appeals. His case will be heard along with Baldwin’s and Echols’s in Jonesboro Circuit Court between September 8th and October 3rd.
So here’s the question. Both times that Misskelley was asked that night in Rector if he wanted to make a statement, against the advice of counsel, his answer was, "Yes, because I want something done about it." What exactly was "it?" According to Officer John Moody of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department, in the statement made during transport to Pine Bluff after his conviction, Jessie said that "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." Hmm. So is that the "it" that Jessie was referring to? An altruistic desire to see justice done combined with a healthy dose of saving his own ass? If this were true, why did he change his mind? Was he, as Dan Stidham and Greg Crow maintained, perjuring himself during the February 17th statement in Rector? Is it possible that Jessie Misskelley - who tested a full twenty IQ points under Richard Lapointe - was being pulled apart by the enormity of the situation, something that even a person of higher intelligence would find unbearable? Was he, as was charged with Richard Lapointe, merely saying what the police wanted him to say? Dan Stidham had requested of Judge Burnett that a psychiatric evaluation be performed on Misskelley before he was allowed to make any further statements to prosecutors. Jessie himself said he wanted "help." If Jessie lied, the consequences of that lie are incalculable. And since he never told the same story twice, well, you know the saying: A lie changes with retelling, but the truth remains the same.
So what was Jessie Misskelley trying to say with his eyes when they shot daggers into his sister when she said, "Damien’s a good kid?"
*Note: Information about the Richard Lapointe case was gleaned primarily from the book, "Convicting the Innocent", Donald L. Connery, 1996, Cambridge Mass.
**Corrections: An alert reader caught some factual errors in my citations of the Reilly case. Peter was eighteen, not seventeen at the time of his arrest. He also spent only five or six months in the Litchfield Corrections Center, which is technically not a prison but a jail. Reilly was released on an appeal bond after his conviction for first-degree manslaughter, and never returned to jail. GCD
"So what was Jessie Misskelley trying to say with his eyes when they shot daggers into his sister when she said, "Damien’s a good kid?""
From what I've heard Damien wasn't exactly a good kid. I think that's the problem some people are having with the case... When you're a bad kid, people think "guilty" pretty quick.
Reply to this
I'm not sure the either "good" or "bad" really describes Damien Echols. Very troubled, maybe even disturbed, probably are more accurate. He was, after all, fully disabled by Social Security for mental health issues. And I think you've locked onto one of the biggest problems with the criminal justice system today. Prosecutors, not normally known as zealous advocates for the truth, but more seekers of convictions, find it easy to take someone with a problem-ridden past and present an ad hoc argument to a jury. He did this, he did that, he must have committed the crime. The public does the same thing, as Mark Byers can readily testify. I think that the locals found Mark more "normal" than they did Damien; the public at large did more of the opposite. Look where Damien's support comes from, for the most part.
What was Misskelley trying to say with "The Look?" I don't think we can be sure. My opinion is that Jessie had been convinced by the West Memphis police that Damien was guilty of the murders, and that he needed to try and save himself. Only Jessie knows for sure.
Reply to this
I have just watched paradise Lost and paradise lost 2. I found it a really thought provoking documentary. But I have some questions about this type of journalism. I thought that in Paradise lost 2 there was a attempt to film as much as possible John Myers, and that his actions and behaviour became a huge focus for the film. What really troubled me was that I felt that John Myers was acting as someone who had been pushed to the edge by grief. He was a man in need of some kind of grief counsellor. Those folks in the Free memphis three group used his behaviour as justification for their belief that he was guilty of murder, even though there was no evidence. Effectively John Myers was being tried by camera, and the more eccentric he seemed to act the better for their cause. I was glad when he passed the lie detector test because john Myers came across as a real charactor who wasn't afraid to show his true feelings or true thoughts. Damien on the other hand, despite having only a few appearance on Paradise lost, came across quiet scary. I don't like to judge by appearances but I always felt a little unsettled when he was on screen. The free memphis three also worried me, they acted like a cult. And did you notice that they hardly ever mentioned Jessie or Jason but were totally obsessed with Damien. The documentary made me think about a lot of things. I wish John Myers all the best, he has suffered so much pain.
Reply to this
Hi Stuart - Always nice to hear from our friends in the UK.
Your comment was extremely interesting. The majority of people who view the Paradise Lost films come away with the exact opposite impression, i.e., that Mark looked guilty and the WM3 looked innocent. You will see in the book - hopefully coming very soon - that I treat the subject of the HBO films very skeptically. Most objective reviewers see the movies for what they were - pure advocacy films. Sadly, much of it came at Mark Byers expense.
Greg
Reply to this
I just watched this Paradise Lost 1, last night and from the second John Myers entered the documentary I thought he had committed the crimes. The scene when he's shooting the pumpkin, how he behaves at the scene of the crime, becoming more active in the church shortly after, all add up to some very suspicious activity. What happened to the 3 little boys was such a meditated well thought out murder that I just don't believe that those convicted had the ability to do it depsite their creepiness and lack of emotion.
Reply to this
So Tara, you do believe Mark Byers committed the murders?
Reply to this
I agree that Mark Byers is very suspicious. As for the lack of emotion from the 3 accused, Jason Baldwin, in the documentaries, was emotional when talking about the 3 victims. Jessie too showed emotion. But Damien was aloof. I believe that that is just his nature and he just couldn't believe that he was on trial for the murders. My son, who also wears black, has long hair, listens to Metallica, and read all kinds of books, including some on cults and the occult, is a Christian. But he too is misjudged quite often because of his appearance. I truly feel that Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs, who were friends, could have done this together. There was a history of abuse in both of those families and obviously sexual abuse was a part of that history.
Reply to this
There was a history of abuse in both of those families and obviously sexual abuse was a part of that history
Reply to this
I recently watched both docs in one day and I can hoenstly say that I never thought Byers seemed guilty. I actually think he seems just like an eccentric, grief-stricken man. I'd venture to say he's almost fun-loving. I felt the documentaries made the boys look guilty, and to this day I'm still trying to get as much info about the case as possible to form a solid opinion. I too, thought it was strange when Jessie shot daggers at his sister. And thought something didn't feel quite right when non of the boys cried or showed any emotion whatsoever when they were found guilty. Very strange. I also didn't like the part in the film where Baldwin is sitting with his lawyers and they say something like, "Because you know you didn't kill those kids." And he nervously moves his head to the side and doesn't really say anything. Lots of things just don't sit well with me which is why I'm not parading around with a Free WM3 sticker on my car. Yet...
Reply to this
Congratulations, Stephanie - you're a thinker! This case is complicated, and the media bias is all over the map. If you haven't discovered it yet, callahan.8k.com has the most extensive library of documents for study. WM3.org, while obviously an advocacy site, has a large library of legal documents, case chronology, etc, much of it without commentary. Lastly, the message boards provide some discussion and many of the users there are helpful and will point you to other sources of information. Beware, however, of disagreeing with any of them; their fairness of mind quickly goes out the window.
Either way you believe, this case requires intense scrutinty for a number of reasons. Glad you found our blog, and please subscribe for updates!
Reply to this
Damien wanted to be and is to date "the west memphis boogie man" and with the look Jessie gave his sister, thats what he is. Jason is a sheep that followed what Damien done, right or wrong. I'm not convinced they actually killed those little boys, but I'm not jumping to support them either. This case raises many questions and not enough answers. I guess they will remain behind bars till there is proof they actually didn't do the crimes. Even when Jason was asked about Damien, he didn't say what a good friend he had been. He said it sure seemed like Damien was involved. I think Jason would know what his best friend was really like. But yet he didn't stick up for him. None of them showed any remorse or outrage after hearing the ruling. As for Mark Bayers, he's just a loud mouth attention hound, but I think a harmless fellow, with alot of mixed emotions.
Reply to this
Rebecca,
You should learn more before you shoot off your mouth. Harmless you think? True, though just towards my friends. EMOTIONS? You have NO idea. I think its safe to say that YOU never had a child murdered. Attention hound? YOU got that part right. I'ma gonna bring ALL the attention to this case that I can. Freedom for 3 & Justice for 6. Any time you get close to Memphis TNt PLEASE stop by & shut my loud mouth up. Harmless old man here. Yes, mixed up, but maybe YOU can set me straight!
Visit here: wm3blackboard.com & post in JMB's joint & I will be happy to set you STRAIGHT.
JOHN MARK BYERS
Reply to this
I try my best to believe the WM3 are innocent, but I keep going back to Jessie describing how he chased down little Michael Moore and returned him to Jason and Damien. There is NO REASON he would have thrown that in if it were not true -- too detailed. And he also talked about Jason calling him and hearing Damien in the background saying, "What if someone saw us? What are we going to do?" Too detailed. And if they were innocent, for Pete's sake, one of them would have had some kind of reaction when the guilty verdicts were read. How about a loud, "But I did not do this!" They appeared to be expecting the verdict because they knew it was too good to be true for them to get away with what they had done. And when Jason said, "I didn't kill them kids," or however he phrased it, there wasn't even the slightest ring of truth to the sound of it or the look of it. I think the environment Damien was brought up in (very deprived) and the drama of the household created the monster he is - part of which is his skill to appear innocent, his soft words, his well-thought-out phrasing...as has been said, he wasn't placed on disability by seasoned professionals for mental illness without something having convinced the state it was warranted. I can see clearly in my head Damien taunting and torturing the children and Jason and Jessie obeying his orders like little lambs. I think there was a lot of suppressed hate by the 3 for the likes of Michael, Chris and Stevie because just by appearance they seemed to have good homes and loving parents --- yes, just by their dress and wholesomeness. I think they represented a lot that J, J & D wished they themselves had, and all of that ilk reminded them of the home life they wished they had and did not. They themselves are to be pitied. So much to be pitied here in every way. Save the WM3!!! Be careful that you know what you might be saving. As for Byers, I believed he killed his wife, whether or not he killed the 3 boys. I will admit, I am totally confused. Byers had a small time frame unwitnessed where he could have slaughtered the boys in 10 minutes if he was of a mind to and returned back to be seen by someone, somewhere. He was very angry at Chris, and the other 2 were witnessed. PLausible? I don't know. I think Chris was sexually abused also; he showed ALL the signs of it. Who knows what all Melissa could have told when she found out Mark was cheating on her and he asked for a divorce. He knew how to ERASE. Look at his history. If he is innocent, then I give him credit for being a REAL human being, throwing it all out there for all to see and hear. But, what a scary guy. Maybe a good guy??? He should not be faulted for his looks, his illness, but there are so many other things he is to be faulted for - his own abuse of drugs, getting and giving them to Melissa, and then blaming her for using. What a hypocrite. But of course Mr. Bogangle's could have..........
Reply to this