Post by jackydee on Jan 7, 2016 13:13:13 GMT
I dont know why you think the confessions of Misskelley would not make it inside a courtroom. They were an important part of the states case in the initial trial I believe, and rightly so. Misskelley did not pull his confession out of the air, he confessed at least three times over the best part of a year and did so with his lawyers present. Misskelleys confession is likely the closest we will ever get to knowing what happened to those boys.
I have said previously in this thread that the legal guilt of these 3 guys may or may not be safe. However, its my opinion they committed the crime. It's perhaps right that they are out of prison, but I will definately not involve myself in defending these guys morally. I at least hope what they did to those boys haunts them until their dying days.
His lawyer was not present during his "confessions". Nor was his legal gaurdian, as was his right.
His story did not match the evidence in any of its iterations. You're right, be didn't "pull it out of thin air". It was supplied to him by his interrogators through coaching and suggestion.
What is "safe" or "unsafe" legal guilt?
Misskelley did in fact confess at least once in front of his lawyer. There is a recording of this confession which I cannot now find, but here are more details in the link below. In the recording I heard you can clearly hear his lawyer warning him not to make a confession, Misskelley confesses anyway.
wm3truth.com/2011/07/jessie-misskelleys-bible-confession-transcript-now-at-callahan/
His story did in fact match much of the evidence but not quite all of it. This is to be expected. He was trying to recall an act he committed months previously, on a night he was drunk, and trying to recall the actions of his two other accomplices. It's to be expected he did not get every detail correct.
As for what is safe or unsafe legal guilt. It's probably best summed up thus: neither you, me, or most other commentators on this case know the full facts. We were not present at trial to hear all the evidence. Plus, much of the evidence we do know is open to interpretation. For instance the case of the turtle bite(s). I refuse to believe that a turtle just happened to have a specific taste for boy genitalia that evening. I think it far more likely that piece of the boys body was deliberately targetted by a human. Though others may reasonably disagree with me. What may be strong evidence to me or a juror may not be strong evidence to you.
Edit. I have found Misskelleys confession where his lawyer(im assuming its his lawyer) is clearly advising him against making a confession. You can hear his lawyer from around the 1min mark:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=agiUghBQgGw