MovieChat Forums > West of Memphis (2012) Discussion > Analyzing Jessie's 02/08/94 'Bible Confe...

Analyzing Jessie's 02/08/94 'Bible Confession'

posted 10 years ago by cosmo_the_writer
23 replies | jump to latest

I've put a link to the full transcript of the 02/08/1994 "bible confession." This was a confession Jessie gave to his attorney AFTER his conviction. He had his hand on a bible the whole time he spoke.

I'm using this document because it seems to be the turning point for a lot of people -- this was the "smoking gun" that (many believe) finally revealed what happened on the day of the murders.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

Are there specific pages that sway you to believe he is telling the truth? If so, which?

Are there pages that contradict the facts of the case?

Take some time and read through this document. I'd love to hear some honest feedback from people who have been following this case. Thanks.

[–] Maverick410 10 years ago

I've read the whole thing more than once. It's not a "smoking gun", and this case didn't have a smoking gun. That's what drives the whole supporter movement. Well, that and the blatantly one sided documentaries. For me personally, this confession (and more so the confession that he gave to the prosecution a few days later) just seemed too convenient. The supporter movement likes to come up with all of these fantastic scenarios, but Jessie's account of the three kids being in the wrong place at the wrong time is the only one that seems logical, imo. Yes, there are inconsistencies in it. Yes, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. But why somebody would continually confess, against the blatant advice of his lawyer, with his hand on a bible to "make it official because I want something done about it", when he flat out said that the police did not bully or intimidate him in any way (no police were present when he said this btw), just doesn't add up. To me, no way would an innocent person do that. No way. I also read Damien's autobiography. It was so blatantly full of lies that my feelings of their guilt was confirmed even more.

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

It's easy to say "Jessie confessed multiple times, so they are guilty" without going much further than that.

But if you look at each of his confessions you will quickly see that he just parroted back the information he was told or heard. His first confession was so wrong, that the officers constantly correct him or goad him into what they want him to say.

I do believe that someone (possibly at the time of the first confession) said "Jessie, tell us what we want to hear and you can (insert whatever here)." So he kept trying to tell them what he thought they wanted to hear.

Even the bible confession has glaring inaccuracies throughout the entire thing. This was after evidence was presented as facts at his trial none the less, those facts he still got wrong.

As for innocent people confessing to crimes they didn't commit, there are multiple instances on the net and on these forums of people doing just that.

[–] peco_777 10 years ago

In his confession he also corrects the officer which leads me to believe he knew exactly what went down. There was no reason for Jesse to admit guilt after the fact, but he did. He also stated that the police didn't force him into anything.

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

In his confession he also corrects the officer which leads me to believe he knew exactly what went down. There was no reason for Jesse to admit guilt after the fact, but he did. He also stated that the police didn't force him into anything.

Are you discussing the first interview? Where Jessie said that the crime happened in the morning and that the 3 boys were raped, etc?

[–] peco_777 10 years ago

The interview with his hand on the bible. Jesse corrected the officer numerous times on details instead of just going a long with it.

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

The interview with his hand on the bible. Jesse corrected the officer numerous times on details instead of just going a long with it.

I think you have your confessions screwed up. There were no officers on the audio, nor in the transcripts of Jessie's bible confession.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html

Please, go back and re-read it. Count how many times he makes a statement then immediately contradicts it. Heck, at one point he even says he left to go to wrestling!

Pay attention to the kid he claims he was hitting, the one in the Cub Scout uniform, the one he claims was unconscious who all of a sudden was Damiens plaything in the next page. Or the shoe laces, how he said he pulled one lace out then said he pulled out all of the laces and handed them to Damien & Jason. Or how all 3 of them were out cold then one was wiggling. Or how he "drank till he was sick" but somehow managed to go to wrestling within 45 minutes of the murders.

I mean hell, you would think that if anyone really believed what he was saying, the whole thing would have been used at Damien/Baldwins trial, which was ongoing. Also, the last lines Jessie says he would testify to it. Why didn't the state use it?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cosmo_the_writer 10 years ago

The first time I read the bible confession and the context in which it was given -- this was after the conviction AND to his own supportive defense attorney (who seemed very panicked and distraught according to court testimony recounting the incident) -- I was kind of freaked out by some of his statements.

Is he retarded -- I don't think so. His judgement is obviously off; but he's "street smart" and seems to carry himself well enough. Sure, MENSA is not about to abduct him and elect him their leader -- but his statements don't read any less intelligent than 95% of the other case statements or interviews I've read.

So... If he's coming clean with this bible confession, why mention any nonsense about cult meetings and a briefcase with photos, etc? Those poor kids were victims of some random act of violence -- not anything premeditated.

If you think about it, this confession seems to cover every possible scenario -- and yet reads like a John Grisham legal drama (at times). I guess we see what we want to see -- but now all I see is more confusion.

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Yet he first said the attack began at 12 noon. That would have been impossible, since the three little boys were all in school then. Then on the tape, you hear the officer trying to make him say the time was later, later, and later.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trinity-destler 10 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hubert This guy proclaimed his guilt all the way to his execution. He was demonstrably incapable of actually committing the crime.

It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with. ~David Bowie

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

And the best logic you can come up with is "Putter is a moron". Grow up. Don't even try the sock puppet defense. It only shows your fear of being contradicted.

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Jenkens (his real screen name, not the sock he uses here and only here) is a nut. Just avoid him, set him on ignore and move on.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Suboxone 10 years ago

Infatuated? You reply to putter more then putter replies to you.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Suboxone 10 years ago

How in the world did I insult you?

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Once again, just set him on ignore, he has other accounts here too, it's fairly simple to figure out who they are. The guy is off his meds nuts.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Thanks, I think I will. I've been harassed on there by trolls as well. It gets old.

[–] disinter 10 years ago

They are all free now, tough sh!t.

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Why are you saying this to me? I'm GLAD they're free! Are you mixing up my post with someone else's?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment