West Memphis Three Revisited

[Jerky]

^ I've witnessed, over these last 20 years or so, individuals and organizations commit an enormous amount of time and resources to spreading and reinforcing the perception that SRA isn't real. The WM3 case, regardless of its actual nature, plays a crucial role in those efforts. I have plenty of evidence about what motivates some of these individuals and organizations. Sometimes it is directly related to covering-up criminal activity, sometimes it is a purely emotional endeavor to maintain a worldview, or block out horrific memories. These activities contribute to what I term the real satanic panic, a social process at work to keep the existence of SRA from being acknowledged. It is possible the filmmakers are simply caught up in this process, or they are motivated more directly, I do not know. That is something I plan to research.

In other words, you have an axe to grind... therefore, the WM3 are guilty?

[Project Willow]

In other words, you have an axe to grind... therefore, the WM3 are guilty?

You know, that really upset me, as it ignores basically everything else I've posted in this thread. I took some time to think it about however, and examine whether my outrage at societal denial of my own personal experiences was clouding my judgement in this case. I don't think so, I'm not that invested in this particular example, and indeed shared the supporter opinion up until about a month and a half ago. I am not at all closed off to the idea that I could very well be wrong. If I get to the end of my own research and it appears supporters are right, I'll say so without reservation.

What I am extremely interested in is a very distinctive pattern of intense scrutiny and interpretation of details I see at work in supporter accounts of the WM3 case. This pattern has much in common with how backlash forces "debunked" the big RA/CSA day care cases. Debunker narratives didn't grow organically out of facts in the case, but from the amplification of numerous potential flaws beyond their real impact, (and often without sufficient evidence), and numerous potential alternate explanations, all presented as if any one of the details or explanations automatically rendered the case invalid. IOW, the flaws were highlighted in a manner that draws attention away from the totality of the evidence and the basic facts in the case. It's similar to a confirmation bias process, constructing an alternative narrative through emphasis and distortion.

For example, in the McMartin case, at least one juror stated they were confident that abuse had occurred, and indeed there was physical evidence of it, but that they simply couldn't say the Buckeys were the guilty parties beyond a reasonable doubt. Dispute over the physical evidence went all the way into extensive arguments about "anal winks", but simply because there was this dispute, the narrative then became, "There was no evidence of abuse." Likewise, intense scrutiny of authority processes and behaviors, with an expectation of perfection and/or comparisons to an ideal, bent the narrative into, "These were false allegations and SRA is not real," This was asserted over and over again, without providing evidence for what the conclusion implies, a conspiracy among authorities to invent an elaborate abuse case where one didn't exist. Only a theory is offered as substantiation of such a conspiracy, the social panic theory, and it is just that, a theory, it's not evidence.

Many supporters of the WM3 engage in similar tactics. The fact of Miskelley's low IQ is assumed to render his confession coerced and false, even though the intent and timeline of police questioning, and many other factors do not support this conclusion. I'll grant that coercion remains a remote possibility, but supporters consider it a certainty, and use it to bolster their argument, again, without comment or evidence for how authorities managed to conspire to create a case against the teens. The theory that community panic and prejudice turned witnesses into liars and police into conspiring manufacturers of evidence is also just that, a theory. I want real evidence of it. I may find it, I just haven't yet. What I have most certainly discovered is that many of the assertions about the case contained in the first two PL documentaries are verifiably false, and the actual records of the investigation and court proceedings reveals an imperfect, yet understandable process wherein the three were prosecuted for murder.

True to any confirmation bias type process, you are bound to find and emphasize what you want to believe about a subject. All I can say is, I'll do my best to check and re-check that I am not engaged in same.

[compared2what?]

[

Lots and lots and lots of people, many of whom are undoubtedly utterly unknown to everybody, including the cops. But there are also those two drug-dealing youths who high-tailed it to the west coast right after the crimes, For example.

You mean the two who were held and interrogated in California for 17 hours, one of whom was Chris Morgan who spent May 6 with the Hobbs family (the very opposite of fleeing the scene), and whose real false confession contained errors about the injuries to the boys that Miskkelley got right, and whom the police considered seriously until their alibis later checked out completely?

Yes. That's of whom I was thinking.

They're not the only ones, though. Pat Brown evidently put about as much effort into ascertaining the whereabouts of various potential suspects as she did into looking for an example of teen utlra-violence that wasn't actually just a word associated with five kids who were exonerated after DNA testing proved they'd given coerced confessions

...it's not clear that this was (or wasn't) a sadistic sex crime. And that website's penchant for continually asserting that it was without acknowledging that there are other options or explaining what makes them less credible doesn't exactly cover it with glory. I mean, at least the people who argue the other side of the case present the evidence against and then dispute it.

Bruising and mutilation in the groin area, dilated anuses.

The medical examiner did not find evidence that any of them had been anally raped. And he also didn't testify that they had been

During the Miskelley trial, the prosecutor had to recall him in order to ask him if he was aware that somewhere there was unspecified medical literature that supported reaching a different conclusion than he had. The relevant testimony is here.

Only one child (Chris Byers) had mutilation in the groin area, which was attributed to animal predation by the forensics report that convinced a judge to let them go.

I just did a search for confirmation that post-mortem animal predation did/could cause such injuries. And the short answer is: Yes. There are numerous papers, studies, reports and textbooks full of gory pictures I wish I'd never seen attesting to it.

But what difference does that make? Because:

It argues against this being a ritual killing, in the traditional sense, which is why I quoted it in response to Fresno, and I'm going to argue knife over snapping turtle in any case.

I'm glad you're reviewing all the evidence before making up your mind.

What website?

That WM3truth website, which either doesn't acknowledge countervailing evidence and/or explanations of it, or minimizes it, or misrepresents it. (For example, wrt Miskelley's confession. Among other things:

They don't mention that the newspapers (citing cops, police-band radio and/or John Mark Byers) had reported most of the stuff he told them about the crime scene/injuries within a day or two of the murders

They minimize/misrepresent his mental vulnerability via spurious comparison to a more profound degree of disability.

They minimize/misrepresent the evidence that pressure tactics were being used, such as the repeated polygraphing.

And they minimize/misrepresent the length of time for which he was interrogated by calling it at four-and-a-half hours on the grounds that he initially confessed four-and-a-half-hours into an approximately 12-hour stretch of time with detectives that the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled had included a seven-and-a-half hour interrogation.

Furthermore, they don't mention that one of the reasons they might have wanted to keep him around was so that they could go back to the well in order to make the confession credible enough to use as a basis for search warrants, which they did over an unknown period of time for the remainder of the day Or as WM3 guilelessly prefers to put it:

Sometime between 3:45 and 5:05 pm: Inspector Gitchell conducts a series of short follow-up tape-recorded interrogations of Misskelley. (Gitchell failed to follow proper procedure in announcing the time when turning on and turning off the tape recorder.)

^^Talk about stuff there's no evidence for. I mean, yes, Gitchell says so. But he's the one who conveniently forgot to make a note of what time it was.

Supporters are the ones lacking evidence for their theories.

Please.

[compared2what?]

The prosecution's experts were also paid for their opinions.

Sadly, the only people who ever examine the bodies are employees of the state, not all of whom are virtuous, wise and talented.

Where's your evidence they either deliberately or mistakenly messed up in this particular case?

I don't have any, precisely. I kind of misspoke, in fact, Employees of the state were at fault. But the ME (same one who didn't find evidence of sexual assault) actually also didn't find that they were knife wounds, and never argued for knife over snapping turtle or anything else:

Ford: Is that your opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty that in your opinion that injury was caused by a serrated knife?

Peretti: Well, it may be caused - it may be caused by another instrument also. But it has the appearance - you know, of the distance. If you look at it there is a pattern to it, but it may be caused by another object also.

Ford: Ok so, in your - is it your opinion that this knife could have caused that injury?

Peretti: It could have caused this injury.

Ford: But anything could have caused it, you don't know what caused that injury - anything? I'm asking, do you know what caused that injury?

Peretti: No.

Ford: Ok. Do - going back to state's exhibit number 59A, which is this photograph, do you know what caused that injury?

Peretti: Well that - that injury is - has the appearance of - of serrations.

Ford: Ok. But this photograph may or may not?

Peretti: That's correct, sir.

Ford: Ok. You would have to speculate to say that that was caused by a - this was a serrated edge, that requires speculation on your part?

Peretti: Yes.

Ford: Your Honor, based on that answer, I would ask that he be prohibited from making any opinion as to anything on Mr. Branch being caused by this knife since he said the only one was that one photograph and it would require him to speculate.

Fogleman: Your Honor, I believe that what he said was #1 that it's consistant with that but there were other things that he - that could cause it and that he couldn't say that it - that the other things didn't cause it, but this is consistant.

The Court: Doctor, do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether or not this knife could have caused the injury that you see in exhibit number -

Peretti: - Um - 66B.

The Court: - 66B.

Peretti: Um - we're just referring to this one particular injury, no other injuries, is that correct?

The Court: At this particular time, yes sir.

Peretti: This injury may be caused by a serration or it may be caused by another object.

The Court: Ok.

.

Please note that the prosecution had to cherry-pick wounds there to get even that much.

(LINK)

____________

FWIW, the police files are full of evidence that the investigation was mistakenly or deliberately messed up on other fronts, though.

As people in that line of work on both sides of a case very frequently -- even routinely -- do with very little sacrifice of confidence when it comes to stuff like wounds, assuming the photographs are adequate/ So that's not actually a point against anybody's opinion, in and of itself. Is there any particular reason you find it likelier or more credible that they were knife marks than that they were signs of small animal predation?

All the other evidence and testimony about the use of a knife in the case.

Such as?

The lack of snapping turtles in that particular gulley when investigators were all over it, and sandbagged and drained it.

So you're hanging your hat on:

They didn't run into snapping turtles when not looking for them while making a lot of noise and moving around in ways that tend to drive small animals away. Therefore there were no snapping turtles, despite their being common in that region and setting.

The short amount of time the bodies were in the water.

There was plenty of time. How long do you think it should have taken?

The absurd idea that only the testicles and skin of the penis would be consumed,

That happens, per the ickily illustrated literature. Facial features and/or male genitalia are apparently the body parts most likely to be the objects of acts of post-mortem small-animal predation.

and only on one particular boy,

I don't see why that makes animal predation less credible, especially for a case in which little-to-no evidence of an alternate cause was presented.

Autopsy report: Some of these wounds showed hemorrhage in the underlying soft tissue, others did not. In between the thighs there were multiple areas of yellow abrasions with skin slippage. The medial aspect of the left thigh showed a yellow abrasion.

It wasn't the ME's opinion that those injuries were caused by knives and/or sexual assault. So I'm not sure what point you're making.

But I don't buy that, I say he was able to identify which boy was cut and where because he witnessed it.

Why?

Because for as often as it is proclaimed that police coerced Misskelley and unfairly targeted these particular young people, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT.

You mean like major errors and inaccuracies in the statement?

Or a lack of persuasive (or, ftm, any) detail about such things as motive?

Or assertions that a child had been choked with a stick when there was no sign he had been?

Or a suspect with a known mental vulnerability?

Or a sustained interrogation, during which the suspect was held alone and talked to nobody bur his interrogators?

Or suggestive gaps and anomalies in police record-keeping?

Or a record of interrogation tactics that are known to be intimidating, such as repeat polygraph administration?

Or an immediate recanting of the confession? ***

___________________

Coerced confessions don't tend to leave a lot of evidence that isn't present here. Even in capital cases, it's not that unusual for them only to be discovered via DNA by accident, years after the fact.

__________________

***ON EDIT: I should have included:

Or a series of confessions the details of which keep changing in absolutely eerie synch with law enforcement's theory of and/or information about the crimes?

Because you could practically compile a timeline of stuff like on what date the prosecution learned there was no semen or signs of penetration, simply by checking to see on what date Jessie Miskelley somehow got the idea from somewhere of revising the conflict out of his story accordingly.

[FourthBase]

Forgive me for not having the patience to review this whole outstanding thread again, but please remind me how WM3 supporters rebut/discredit/explain Misskelley's confession to his own attorney? Thanks.

[compared2what?]

Forgive me for not having the patience to review this whole outstanding thread again, but please remind me how WM3 supporters rebut/discredit/explain Misskelley's confession to his own attorney?

There were at least two. The first one was bout a week after the original was elicited by interrogation, during a period in which he repeated the same error-riddled and much-prompted story he told cops sometimes and denied/recanted it sometimes. I believe he'd been in custody more or less continuously either without contact with anyone besides cops and jailers since the interrogation or with very little of it. And I think it was the first time he met Stidham,

So I'd say that one was a cross between the same coerced confession as the original and just him trying to live with what he'd wrought without understanding it. The Central Park Jogger kids did more or less the same thing. IIRC.

Then there was another, three days after his conviction and a few weeks before Echols and Baldwin went to trial. And that one was quite clearly a response to prosecutorial pressure/inducement, which was intense, due to his non-availability as a witness leaving them with no case to try. Technically. In the event, a cop "accidentally" mentioned the confession on the stand.

It was also considered by the jury as a key piece of evidence via other channels, although it hadn't been introduced, per juror notes and admission. .

Thanks.

You're welcome,

Please remind me how WM3 opponents account for there being no corroborating evidence of any kind in support of those poor children having been killed or injured when, where, how and by whom Miskelley said they were, apart from the theories and assertions generated by local law enforcement all on its ownsie. .


Thanks.

[FourthBase]

Wasn't a rhetorical thanks. I find myself being persuaded on the whole more by PW, but the figurative jury is still out.

[compared2what?]

Wasn't a rhetorical thanks. I find myself being persuaded on the whole more by PW, but the figurative jury is still out.

It wasn't a rhetorical question, on my part.*** There's literally no evidence that any of the three committed those crimes in the place and manner or at the time to which Miskelley confessed. Even with the time corrected (per Gitchell's leading questions), it was entirely, one-hundred-percent a repetition of the extant police theory of the crime, for which there was literally no support other than the pre-existing beliefs of Jerry Driver and Steve Jones that Echols was into Satanic cult worship rather than Wicca supplemented by ex-post-facto gossip, none of which was ever corroborated except by itself. [ON EDIT: There was evidence that he was interested in it, to be fair. He read LaVey, and so on. But that's not a crime. A lot of people do.) Among other things:

There was no finding of sexual assault.

There was no finding of a knife having been used.

There was no knife found or identified.

There was no prior history of remotely similar acts on the part of any of the three.

There was no evidence that the crimes occurred in the woods at all.

There was no certain or clear evidence about the time of death

There was no evidence that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley hung out there on a regular, familiar basis.

There was no evidence that rituals occurred there on any basis.

There were no signs of a ritual having occurred.

There were no bodies or bicycles found during the search of the area, which is not very large.

There was no indication that the suspects were aware of or interested in the victims, even generally. (Meaning: Interested in small male children.) .

Additionally:


Miskelley's confession met all the criteria for false/coerced confessions that I listed two posts ago.

There was no attempt made to eliminate suspects such as family/friends/others with access (or, in some cases, to resolve the contradictions in their accounts), per police files,

The condition in which the bodies were found (ie -- nude, hogtied, mutilated) was in the newspaper the day after the murders.

Police speculation about it having been a cult crime was also in the newspaper shortly after the murders, although I don't remember when and it was already current anyway.

It was a small community, in which John Mark Byers -- who was privy to details about the crimes both as a police informant/friend of the investigating officer and as the parent of one of the vicrims -- shot his mouth off constantly, starting right after the bodies were found, as attested to by news reports and witnesses, to name just one source of info. And again, that started the day after the crime.

I really hate to disagree with Willow, whose judgment and cause I respect.

But the entire argument for guilt that's being made at the they-did-it venues I've seen so far is premised on ignoring everything known or reported about the case (which includes quite a bit of evidence that there was serious prosecutorial/judicial/police misconduct, at this stage of the game) in favor of four things:


Going to great lengths to make Miskelley's confession look less dubious at the cost of honesty and common sense, by such means as shortening the alleged (already shortened) interrogation time from four-and-a-half hours on the grounds that questions were only being asked during three of them, as if abruptly leaving a suspect sitting alone in a room in the middle of an intense and frightening encounter wasn't in itself an interrogation tactic. (Again, to give just one example.)

Going to equally great lengths to represent psychiatric records for Echols that weren't in evidence at trial and don't reflect a propensity for violence as if they were direct proof of guilt and doing so without making any attempt to contextualize them. (By, for example, pointing out that that degree of suicidality,is utterly incompatible with that degree of homicidal sadism, although the former is actual and well attested to and the latter is completely theoretical. Or by, for another example, making it appropriately clear that their extremity is explicable by their having been introduced as a factor mitigating against sentencing him to death during the penalty phase.)

Frequent, prominent, unqualifed and unevidenced assertions that the crimes were sexual and sadistic, without acknowledgment of how little there ever was in favor of that hypothesis beyond the stark impression made by the nude, bound (and, in one case, mutilated) bodies of the children when they were found. (Which is obviously very understandable, in human terms. But the state is supposed to have an obligation to prove that its assumptions are true by presenting evidence for them before it convicts people.

The continual repetition of local hearsay/gossip about satanic inclinations on the part of Echols, most of which emerged after the fact, some of which originated with biased sources -- the same ex-girlfriend's parents whose animosity led to him being charged with the B&E that brought him to police attention to begin with, for instance -- and none of which was ever corroborated.

^^In case an explanation of the non-rhetorical nature of the question was called for.
___________________

***(Or "Thanks" therefore.)

[compared2what?]

I guess I'm also a little distressed to see no consideration being given to the strong disadvantage that three dirt-poor, powerless teenagers and their variously troubled, distracted, overwhelmed and/or broken families might have wrt to such things as getting what they have to say into the record, relative to very powerful institutions such as the police force and the state of Arkansas, once accused.

Because that's an endemic problem eveywhere, in one form or another.

[Project Willow]

The medical examiner did not find evidence that any of them had been anally raped. And he also didn't testify that they had been
...
Only one child (Chris Byers) had mutilation in the groin area, which was attributed to animal predation by the forensics report that convinced a judge to let them go.

Attributed by a highly paid, cherry-picked expert for the defense some years post conviction. Anal rape does not necessarily produce lacerations, or any other obvious signs of penetration. Did the turtles cause the bruising as well? How do these experts account for postmortem hemorrhaging as it's generally a sign of antemortem injury?

That WM3truth website, which either doesn't acknowledge countervailing evidence and/or explanations of it, or minimizes it, or misrepresents it. (For example, wrt Miskelley's confession. Among other things:

They don't mention that the newspapers (citing cops, police-band radio and/or John Mark Byers) had reported most of the stuff he told them about the crime scene/injuries within a day or two of the murders

This is exactly why I have no interest in arguing ideas contained in movies and on supporter/opponent websites. Look at the court record. If Misskelley hadn't supplied details that were not public knowledge at the time, there wouldn't be a case. His defense team attempted to claim at trial that the details were present in press reports but they failed to do so.

They minimize/misrepresent the evidence that pressure tactics were being used, such as the repeated polygraphing.

You are mistaken. Again, look at the actual record. There was only one polygraph session that day, administered BEFORE Misskelley's confession, he was not a suspect nor had he been arrested at that point. It was administered to verify his statements as a witness, as the cops had done with many other witnesses. It was administered with the full knowledge and signature of Misskelley Sr., who testified that when Detective Allen drove up to meet him in order to get his signature for the polygraph, Allen was "laughing and joking" with his son. This in no way supports the idea that Misskelley was being targeted, isolated, and coercively interrogated.

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

A. I don't remember at the shop about it, but my boss said he did, but I don't remember it. I left the shop after they left. I was in the wrecker going home after some parts and they pulled up beside me going down Missouri Street. Mike Allen said he had been trying to find me. I said, "I'm going here to Chief's Auto Parts to get some parts."
They pulled in there beside of me, and they both got out of the car, laughing and joking.
Q. When you say "they," do you mean --
A. Jessie and Mike Allen.

And they minimize/misrepresent the length of time for which he was interrogated by calling it at four-and-a-half hours on the grounds that he initially confessed four-and-a-half-hours into an approximately 12-hour stretch of time with detectives that the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled had included a seven-and-a-half hour interrogation.

It was not twelve hours and he was not interrogated the entire time, please read the record: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html

10AM, Jessie arrives at police station having been picked up from his father.
11:15AM Mike Allen takes Jessie with him, unrestrained, in the front seat of the police car, to get his father's signature for the polygraph.
12:30PM polygraph over.
12:40 Questioning resumed.
by 2:20PM Jessie had confessed.

That's a total of 3 hours and twenty minutes of police contact before Jessie's first confession, and part of that time he was outside, unsecured, laughing and joking with a detective.
They arrested him at 2:44PM.
By 3:18 they had a taped confession.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmir.html [capitalization in original]

AT ABOUT 2:20 PM JESSIE TOLD INSPECTOR GITCHELL THAT HE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS AND BEGAN CRYING ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED. JESSIE SEEMED TO BE SORRY FOR WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND TOLD THAT HE HAD BEEN THERE WHEN THE BOYS WERE FIRST COMING INTO THE WOODS AND WERE CALLED BY DAMIEN TO COME OVER TO WHERE THEY WERE.

AT THIS TIME MYSELF AND INSPECTOR GITCHELL GAVE JESSIE SOME TIME TO COMPOSE HIMSELF AND FOR ME TO COMPOSE MYSELF DUE TO THE EMOTIONAL SITUATION THAT HAD JUST BEGAN. WE THEN PREPARED FOR THE INTERROGATION TO BE TAPED DUE TO THIS BEING THE FIRST INDICATION THAT JESSIE HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN A PART IN THE MURDERS AND WAS PRESENT IN THE WOODS AT THE TIME. JESSIE WAS ASKED IF HE WANTED ANYTHING TO EAT OR DRINK WHEN HE REGAINED HIS COMPOSURE AND HE REFUSED STATED THAT HE DIDN’T WANT ANYTHING.

A TAPE RECORDER WAS SET UP IN THE OFFICE AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE REST OF THE INTERROGATION WOULD BE TAPED FOR RECORDS AND JESSIE JR. STATED THAT HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT PROCEDURE. A TAPED INTERROGATION WAS THEN STARTED WITH THE BEGINNING AT 2:44 PM IN WHICH JESSIE’S RIGHTS WERE READ TO HIM AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED HE UNDERSTOOD AND SIGNED THE RIGHTS FORM BEFORE THE INTERROGATION HAD BEGAN.

JESSIE JR. DURING THE COURSE OF THE INTERVIEW GAVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT ONLY A PERSON WITH FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE COULD HAVE HAD. JESSIE MISSKELLEY JR. STATED THAT HE DID TAKE PART IN THE APPREHENSION OF THE VICTIMS AND THAT HE WAS AN EYE WITNESS TO THE MURDERS OF THE VICTIMS BY JASON BALDWIN AND DAMIEN ECHOLS.

Furthermore, they don't mention that one of the reasons they might have wanted to keep him around was so that they could go back to the well in order to make the confession credible enough to use as a basis for search warrants, which they did over an unknown period of time for the remainder of the day Or as WM3 guilelessly prefers to put it:

Sometime between 3:45 and 5:05 pm: Inspector Gitchell conducts a series of short follow-up tape-recorded interrogations of Misskelley. (Gitchell failed to follow proper procedure in announcing the time when turning on and turning off the tape recorder.)

^^Talk about stuff there's no evidence for. I mean, yes, Gitchell says so. But he's the one who conveniently forgot to make a note of what time it was.

Keep him around?? After his confession, they arrested him! He went through the booking process, then there was more taped questioning, then he ate a hamburger for dinner while police began to organize their evidence in order to obtain search warrants. How is this in any way outside of a completely logical and appropriate police procedure?

[compared2what?]

Further to the claim that the only problem with Miskelley's confession was that he got a few details wrong, but exhibited otherwise inexplicably on-target knowledge of the victims and their injuries, confirmed by existing evidence:

(1) Immediately before the taped statement, per Ridge's notes:

Show a picture of one victim in coroner's office

Jessie know was one of those killed by Damien
Jessie looked hard at Picture and said it was of
"Moore Boy"

He then went on to say which child he was talking about during his confession by wrongly identifying a photograph of Chris Byers as Michael Moore, and was helpfully corrected by detectives..

(2) He also told Ridge and Gitchell that:

Stated he had received a call from Jason Baldwin
the night before Murders.
They were going to go out and get some boys and
hurt them
Stated he received call from Jason, Damien in Background
wanted him to go with them
Said they planned something.
Heard Damien say that Jason ought to tell
that they were going to get some girls or something
Jessie said he knew what they were going to do.

Jessie began to say something and then says he
doesn't want anything to do with it

[star] Jessie stated that he saw pictures of Boys Killed
During Meeing

s/ABR 250

006251

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

OFFENSE:

VICTIM:

COMP# CF# DATE PG 2 OF

Has meeting of "(Satanic cult.)"
will meet in different Places
will talk of what they are gong to do
will build fire of paper & Wood and stuff
a friend of Jason's will bring a brief case
15 YOA Ken wears a long coat.

(Brief case has a couple of guns
Lives near where Billy Stewart used to live

Someone brings a dog and they usually kill
the gods

They will skin the dog and eat part of it.

Says that Damien drives a Red car that is owned
by Jack Echols.

In the Briefcase are a couple of guns and
some drugs. Marijuanna and cocaine.

States that the picture of the boys in a group of
the 3 in front of a house

Damien has been to W. Mphs. watching

Has watched boys in the woods where they
were killed.


s/ABR 250

006252


INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

OFFENSE:

VICTIM:

COMP# CF# DATE PG 3 OF


States that Damien hangs out at Skating Rink to find
Boys.

Doesn't know who has briefcase now.

Says Damien has been watching Boys for
a long time.

Meetings all held on Wednesday

On Wednesday that Boys were killed there
was no meeting

Friends
Who attends Meetings Christina Jones
Jessie Dennis Carter
Jason
Damien
Adam ?
Ken ?
New Dude
Tiffany Allen
Domini
Christina Jones
Blond Hair Tall Heavyset

will be 8 or nine people and they will have orgy
afterwards 3 on one

That's a lot of detail never to be heard of again in a statement by someone whose reliability is alleged to be dependent on how closely his knowledge of the crime coincided with the evidence, considering.

(3) Per Detective Ridge's contemporaneous notes, the polygraph examination lasted from 10:30 to 12:30, which is an unexplained one hour over the time that the examiner testified to months later . But for some reason, the anti-WM3 sites don't find that indicative enough of anything to be worth mentioning, although they do find similar time discrepancies in the statements that a bunch of disorganized teenagers who were not under oath made about when phone calls were made or rides given weeks after the fact to be evidence that their alibis were false,***

FWIW as a consideration in terms of how Miskelley could have known anything about the crime if he wasn't there, polygraph questions are always yes-or-no.
________________

*** FTM, if time-line disagreements in statements made in June by the accused about where they were on that evening count as suspicious, I'm not really sure why exactly the same kind of time-line disagreements in exactly the same kind of statements made the day after the crime by John Mark and Ryan Byers don't.

I'm not making a case for or against their involvement. I'm just pointing out that it's cherry-picking to highlight it in one instance and ignore it in the other.

.

[Project Willow]

Here we are with the very same pattern, disagreements over evidence are rendered into "there's no evidence". BULLPUCKY.

There's literally no evidence that any of the three committed those crimes in the place and manner or at the time to which Miskelley confessed. Even with the time corrected (per Gitchell's leading questions), it was entirely, one-hundred-percent a repetition of the extant police theory of the crime, for which there was literally no support other than the pre-existing beliefs of Jerry Driver and Steve Jones that Echols was into Satanic cult worship rather than Wicca supplemented by ex-post-facto gossip, none of which was ever corroborated except by itself. [ON EDIT: There was evidence that he was interested in it, to be fair. He read LaVey, and so on. But that's not a crime. A lot of people do.) Among other things:

BALONEY. Let's take these one at a time and go directly to the record because you're making false statements here, C2W, just like the filmmakers, and I'd like to know why.

There was no finding of sexual assault.

That is false. Read the record here: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/frankp.html

1. Bruising of the penis is sexual assault. (see testimony on Branch below)

2. Sexual mutilation is sexual assault.

3. The ME testified that the pattern of injury to the ears, lips, and inside the mouths of all three victims was consistent with forced oral sex.

4. The ONLY contention was over sodomy. The ME testified that in his experience he had always found obvious trauma orifice and rectum (lacerations, tearing) in child rape cases. He did not deny that obvious trauma is not always present according the literature.

He also testified that all three victims had dilated anuses and hyperemia, and Byers' rectum showed hyperemia (inflammation due to pressure) throughout. He also testified that there were injuries around Byers' anus:

Davis: Okay. And, in this case if you would refer to your autopsy report on Christopher Byers, page 4 of that report I believe, at the very top of the page, did you indicate in that report that the anal orifice was markedly dilated?

Peretti: Yes, on Christopher Byers, it was markedly dilated.

Davis: Okay: When you say "markedly" how is that different from the other ones where you said it was dilated?

Peretti: Well, it was dilated more than the others.

Davis: Okay. And you also indicate that the examination of the rectal/anal mucosa showed to be diffusely hyperemic?

Peretti: Yes.

Davis: Okay: And injected, correct?

Peretti: That's correct.

Davis: Okay. And what does "diffusely" mean?

Peretti: I mean all over--involving the entire mucosal surface.

Davis: Okay. And about five or four paragraphs down, right before you get to the injuries of the right leg, did you indicate that there was scattered linear abrasions present about the anal orifice?

Peretti: Yes.

Davis: Okay. And that would be abrasions around the area of the anal opening?

Peretti: Yes.

Davis: Okay. And you indicated, I believe, on cross-exam of Mr. Stidham, that there--you found no tears or anything in the anal orifice itself. Is that correct?

Peretti: That's correct.

Davis: And would whether or not there was trauma of that nature, would that depend on number one, if there was penetration?

Peretti: That would depend on if there was penetration.

Davis: Okay. If there was an attempt at sodomizing an individual but no penetration, would you expect to find tears or lacerations?

Peretti: Well, if the penis, you know, enters into the canal because the canal is tight, I would expect to find lacer - - tearing and bruising and abrasions of the opening.

Davis: Okay. But with no penetration, would you expect to find the injuries to be to the outer portion of the buttocks?

Peretti: Well, without penetrating--if there was forcible penetration you would have some injuries around the external aspects of the orifice.

Davis: Okay. And here we had some injuries?

Peretti: We had some abrasions.

Davis: Okay. And also, the size of the object penetrating would determine if there was any laceration or tears, correct?

Peretti: That's correct.

An anus dilated beyond 20mm is considered a sign of abuse. Did the water cause their anuses to be differentially dilated?

More testimony on the sexual assaults:
On Branch

Peretti: There are injuries to the penis and the anus. The anus was--the anus showed dilatation and hyperemia of the anal mucosa. The penis...

Davis: [interrupting] When you say hyperemia, Doctor, what do you mean by that?

Peretti: Redness of the muscosa. It's red. It's not the normal coloration it should be.

Davis: And dilation would be enlargement?

Peretti: Of the orifice? Yes.

Davis: And in regard, if you could refer to exhibit number to explain these additional injuries?

Peretti: Okay, um. Exhibits number 64B and 65B are photographs of the penis. 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches. This injury is--you can see there's a well--area of demarcation between the involved area and the uninvolved area. This is--all this discoloration here is bruising. There are fine scratches overlying the head of the penis along with other focal areas of bruising. Also, State's Exhibit 64B is the back of the penis showing the similar injuries and the line of demarcation between the uninvolved and non-involved area.

Davis: Doctor, do you have an opinion as to what type of instrument or what could have caused the bruising, lacerations and injury that you indicated there to the penis?

Peretti: Well, these injuries could be from oral sex. They could be from--also from a squeeze, a very tight squeeze but also with the clear band of demarcation between the uninvolved and involved surfaces it could have been that an object could have been placed around the penis and tightened very fastly. State's Exhibit 59B is an injury that was on the thigh, a linear band. You have two linear bands here with an area of pallor and abrasion right here. State's Exhibit 66B is a photograph of the arm showing some bruising inside the arm and some scratches.

On Byers:

Peretti: Okay. State's Exhibit 71C is the buttock region and here--there was evidence of genital mutilation. This is the back, here's the anal orifice. There are multiple cutting wounds here around the anal orifice and the perineum area, the piece--the area between the um, below the anal orifice.

Davis: Doctor, did you also make a finding that the anal and rectal mucosa were hyperemic and injected?

Peretti: Yes, I did.

Davis: Can you explain what that means?

Peretti: Well, it means that it was red and injected, there was some capillary dilatation there.

Davis: And there were signs of physical trauma as far as abrasions and lacerations to the buttocks area and the area immediately surrounding the anus? Is that correct?

...

Peretti: There's cutting wounds and abrasions, yes. And State's Exhibit 70C is a close-up of the genital mutilation. Here, we have multiple gouging type injuries where the skin has just been pulled out. The skin overlying the shaft of the penis was carved off. What you see here, the part--this red part that's in the photograph, that's the shaft of the penis after the skin has been removed and you can see above the scrotal sac and testes are all missing. The whole genital area is missing except for the internal aspects of the shaft of the penis and around this area you can see the multiple gouging type wounds, stab wounds and cutting wounds.

Davis: Doctor, the gouge wounds and cutting wounds you referred to around the genital area, how did those, in your opinion, how would those wounds have been inflicted? What type of manner would those have been inflicted in?

Peretti: Well, it could be when you see these type of irregular cutting wounds, gouging wounds, not knowing the instrument, you can get these type of wounds from a knife, piece of glass, usually the knife or the object is being twisted and the victim is moving to get those irregular edges. State's Exhibit 69C is a photograph showing the legs, the area of genital mutilation and you can also see the binding injuries of the left wrist but also here, we can note in the um, on the thighs, on the top of the thighs and inner aspects of the thighs, we have multiple contusions or bruising inside the thighs and you can see that here.

Davis: Doctor, what would cause that type of bruising and that type of injury?

Peretti: Well, these type of injuries we normally see in a--female rape victims when they're trying to spread the legs to, for penetration or it may be hit with an object also, that's a possibility. Okay, I'll take these a little out of order here, State's Exhibit 65C is a close-up of the bruises inside the thigh. State's Exhibit 72C is a photograph showing the back of the anal region, the thighs and the bruising situated on the thighs and also, on the backs of the legs, the lower legs and here you can see all the bruising. There's some sort of pattern here, you've got these two linear bands of contusion and in between here, you have this space which is called pallor which is uninvolved so that indicates in this part an object such as a piece of wood, a large object was inflicted there to cause--struck there to cause this type of injury. Also, you can see on the back of the legs what we would classify as defense wounds too or bruising to the back of the legs. State's Exhibit 61C just shows a small abrasion to the back of the neck.

[compared2what?]

The medical examiner did not find evidence that any of them had been anally raped. And he also didn't testify that they had been
...
Only one child (Chris Byers) had mutilation in the groin area, which was attributed to animal predation by the forensics report that convinced a judge to let them go.

Attributed by a highly paid, cherry-picked expert for the defense some years post conviction.

Oh, you know what they (it was more than one author) were paid? How much was it? Also, how were the experts cherry-picked? By whom?

Because I'm sure you're not speaking from bias.

Anal rape does not necessarily produce lacerations, or any other obvious signs of penetration.

Now you're subsituting your own opinion for that of the (qualified) person who examined the bodies, as well as the (qualified) people who examined the photographs.

Did the turtles cause the bruising as well? How do these experts account for postmortem hemorrhaging as it's generally a sign of antemortem injury?

I don't think that any of the experts for the prosecution or the defense were able to match your ability to specify a cause for that. Maybe you should become a highly paid expert consultant.

That WM3truth website, which either doesn't acknowledge countervailing evidence and/or explanations of it, or minimizes it, or misrepresents it. (For example, wrt Miskelley's confession. Among other things:

They don't mention that the newspapers (citing cops, police-band radio and/or John Mark Byers) had reported most of the stuff he told them about the crime scene/injuries within a day or two of the murders

This is exactly why I have no interest in arguing ideas contained in movies and on supporter/opponent websites. Look at the court record. If Misskelley hadn't supplied details that were not public knowledge

To say nothing of twenty times more details that were completely inapplicable or wrong

at the time, there wouldn't be a case.

Yes. I know.

His defense team attempted to claim at trial that the details were present in press reports but they failed to do so.

Oh, well. If Judge Burnett didn't let something happen, it must have been right. That's all the proof anyone should need of Miskelley's guilt.


Yes. I know. Their failure to get it into evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. Most of those details were present in press reports. Plus, as already mentioned, John Mark Byers was shooting his mouth off; the cops are on the record as showing him a picture of one of the children in the morgue and may have showed him others or given him information by other means in the course of the interrogation; et cetera.

He didn't actually get that many details right. So it wouldn't have been too elaborate a task conveying them to him.

They minimize/misrepresent the evidence that pressure tactics were being used, such as the repeated polygraphing.

You are mistaken. Again, look at the actual record.

I did. There's more than one version of it. That's why I noted that there was an unmentioned-by-WM3 discepancy about how long the polygraph examination tool.

There was only one polygraph session that day, administered BEFORE Misskelley's confession,

He was polygraphed three times in that session. (At least. The timing is in question.) And the entire fucking point is that it was before the confession. Because it's coercive.

he was not a suspect nor had he been arrested at that point. It was administered to verify his statements as a witness, as the cops had done with many other witnesses.

Oh, yes. I'm sure that's why during the part of it that there's a record of they asked him if he'd ever engaged in devil worship and whether he was involved in the murder of the three boys, You know. Like they asked many of their witnesses. It must have been very relaxing.

It was administered with the full knowledge and signature of Misskelley Sr., who testified that when Detective Allen drove up to meet him in order to get his signature for the polygraph,

Is there something about the power differential between the dirt-poor of a town and the police that you don't get? Of course Miskelley Sr. did what the cops asked him to do. That doesn't mean anything. I'm not claiming his civil rights were violated.

[/b] Allen was "laughing and joking" with his son.[/b] This in no way supports the idea that Misskelley was being targeted, isolated, and coercively interrogated.[/b]

Why not? It's completely consistent with it.

And they minimize/misrepresent the length of time for which he was interrogated by calling it at four-and-a-half hours on the grounds that he initially confessed four-and-a-half-hours into an approximately 12-hour stretch of time with detectives that the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled had included a seven-and-a-half hour interrogation.

It was not twelve hours and he was not interrogated the entire time, please read the record: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html

I consulted it. Please read my post. I didn't say he was interrogated for twelve hours. I said he was there for a nearly twelve-hour stretch of time.

10AM, Jessie arrives at police station having been picked up from his father.
11:15AM Mike Allen takes Jessie with him, unrestrained, in the front seat of the police car, to get his father's signature for the polygraph.
12:30PM polygraph over.
12:40 Questioning resumed.
by 2:20PM Jessie had confessed.

That's a total of 3 hours and twenty minutes of police contact before Jessie's first confession, and part of that time he was outside, unsecured, laughing and joking with a detective.

You're kidding.

They arrested him at 2:44PM.
By 3:18 they had a taped confession.

Go team!

Furthermore, they don't mention that one of the reasons they might have wanted to keep him around was so that they could go back to the well in order to make the confession credible enough to use as a basis for search warrants, which they did over an unknown period of time for the remainder of the day Or as WM3 guilelessly prefers to put it:

Sometime between 3:45 and 5:05 pm: Inspector Gitchell conducts a series of short follow-up tape-recorded interrogations of Misskelley. (Gitchell failed to follow proper procedure in announcing the time when turning on and turning off the tape recorder.)

^^Talk about stuff there's no evidence for. I mean, yes, Gitchell says so. But he's the one who conveniently forgot to make a note of what time it was.

Keep him around?? After his confession, they arrested him! He went through the booking process, then there was more taped questioning,

Yes. That's what they kept him around for, due to their need to have a confession that didn't put the murders at an hour when all of the victims and one of the suspects was at school.

then he ate a hamburger for dinner while police began to organize their evidence in order to obtain search warrants.

Must have been as much fun as the polygraph they gave to many of their witnesses or driving freely around with your new best friend Detective Allen who's just going to make sure it's okay with your dad if they hook you up to a machine and ask you about a horrible crime a few more times.

I mean, gosh. A hamburger?

How is this in any way outside of a completely logical and appropriate police procedure?

Hauling in teenagers against whom there's no evidence on the off-chance that if you subject them to hours of questions about their knowledge of/involvement with the crimes you're investigating (alternating with questions about stuff like their drug use)*** they'll feel threatened enough to incriminate the guy you've targeted against whom you also have no evidence is logical in a way, I suppose.

Whether it's appropriate it is another issue.

________________

***Consult the record. What there is of it. They weren't laughing, joking or eating hamburgers.

[compared2what?]

Here we are with the very same pattern, disagreements over evidence are rendered into "there's no evidence". BULLPUCKY.

There's literally no evidence that any of the three committed those crimes in the place and manner or at the time to which Miskelley confessed. Even with the time corrected (per Gitchell's leading questions), it was entirely, one-hundred-percent a repetition of the extant police theory of the crime, for which there was literally no support other than the pre-existing beliefs of Jerry Driver and Steve Jones that Echols was into Satanic cult worship rather than Wicca supplemented by ex-post-facto gossip, none of which was ever corroborated except by itself. [ON EDIT: There was evidence that he was interested in it, to be fair. He read LaVey, and so on. But that's not a crime. A lot of people do.) Among other things:

BALONEY. Let's take these one at a time and go directly to the record because you're making false statements here, C2W, just like the filmmakers, and I'd like to know why.

There was no finding of sexual assault.

That is false. Read the record here: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/frankp.html

I have.

1. Bruising of the penis is sexual assault. (see testimony on Branch below)

It depends what caused it. There was no finding of sexual assault.

2. Sexual mutilation is sexual assault.

Please see above. Peretti did not find that they had been sexually assaulted. His testimony makes it clear that he thought they hadn't been, in fact.

He also didn't find that they'd been assaulted with knives.

You're stating your assumptions as fact and ignoring the very record that you keep telling me to consult.

3. The ME testified that the pattern of injury to the ears, lips, and inside the mouths of all three victims was consistent with forced oral sex.

Consult the fucking record and you'll see that he says "consistent with" to mean "could be, don't know, didn't find that or I would have put it in my report."

4. The ONLY contention was over sodomy. The ME testified that in his experience he had always found obvious trauma orifice and rectum (lacerations, tearing) in child rape cases. He did not deny that obvious trauma is not always present according the literature.

Are you even reading my posts? I know that. I already said that they had to recall him in order for the DA to basically testify by asking him that question about some unspecified medical literature.

Speaking of which, since you so confidently informed me in your previous post that it was correct, I assume you know what he was referring to and have read it. Who wrote it and what did they say?

[qiuote]He also testified that all three victims had dilated anuses and hyperemia, and Byers' rectum showed hyperemia (inflammation due to pressure) throughout. He also testified that there were injuries around Byers' anus:[/quote]

I've read it. He very plainly refuses to say that those were signs of sexual assault. Read Byers's autopsy report. And then try searching PubMed for "postmortem anal dilation in children." You'll find lots of literature explaining the state of his anus and rectum.

Davis: Okay. And, in this case if you would refer to your autopsy report on Christopher Byers, page 4 of that report I believe, at the very top of the page, did you indicate in that report that the anal orifice was markedly dilated?

Peretti: Yes, on Christopher Byers, it was markedly dilated.

Davis: Okay: When you say "markedly" how is that different from the other ones where you said it was dilated?

Peretti: Well, it was dilated more than the others.

Davis: Okay. And you also indicate that the examination of the rectal/anal mucosa showed to be diffusely hyperemic?


Peretti: Yes.

Davis: Okay: And injected, correct?

Peretti: That's correct.

Davis: Okay. And what does "diffusely" mean?

Peretti: I mean all over--involving the entire mucosal surface.

Davis: Okay. And about five or four paragraphs down, right before you get to the injuries of the right leg, did you indicate that there was scattered linear abrasions present about the anal orifice?

Peretti: Yes.

Davis: Okay. And that would be abrasions around the area of the anal opening?

Peretti: Yes.

Davis: Okay. And you indicated, I believe, on cross-exam of Mr. Stidham, that there--you found no tears or anything in the anal orifice itself. Is that correct?

Peretti: That's correct.

Davis: And would whether or not there was trauma of that nature, would that depend on number one, if there was penetration?

Peretti: That would depend on if there was penetration.

Davis: Okay. If there was an attempt at sodomizing an individual but no penetration, would you expect to find tears or lacerations?

Peretti: Well, if the penis, you know, enters into the canal because the canal is tight, I would expect to find lacer - - tearing and bruising and abrasions of the opening.

Davis: Okay. But with no penetration, would you expect to find the injuries to be to the outer portion of the buttocks?

Peretti: Well, without penetrating--if there was forcible penetration you would have some injuries around the external aspects of the orifice.

Davis: Okay. And here we had some injuries?

Peretti: We had some abrasions.

Davis: Okay. And also, the size of the object penetrating would determine if there was any laceration or tears, correct?

Peretti: That's correct.

An anus dilated beyond 20mm is considered a sign of abuse. Did the water cause their anuses to be differentially dilated?

More testimony on the sexual assaults:
On Branch

Peretti: There are injuries to the penis and the anus. The anus was--the anus showed dilatation and hyperemia of the anal mucosa. The penis...

Davis: [interrupting] When you say hyperemia, Doctor, what do you mean by that?

Peretti: Redness of the muscosa. It's red. It's not the normal coloration it should be.

Davis: And dilation would be enlargement?

Peretti: Of the orifice? Yes.

Davis: And in regard, if you could refer to exhibit number to explain these additional injuries?

Peretti: Okay, um. Exhibits number 64B and 65B are photographs of the penis. 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches. This injury is--you can see there's a well--area of demarcation between the involved area and the uninvolved area. This is--all this discoloration here is bruising. There are fine scratches overlying the head of the penis along with other focal areas of bruising. Also, State's Exhibit 64B is the back of the penis showing the similar injuries and the line of demarcation between the uninvolved and non-involved area.

Davis: Doctor, do you have an opinion as to what type of instrument or what could have caused the bruising, lacerations and injury that you indicated there to the penis?

Peretti: Well, these injuries could be from oral sex. They could be from--also from a squeeze, a very tight squeeze but also with the clear band of demarcation between the uninvolved and involved surfaces it could have been that an object could have been placed around the penis and tightened very fastly. State's Exhibit 59B is an injury that was on the thigh, a linear band. You have two linear bands here with an area of pallor and abrasion right here. State's Exhibit 66B is a photograph of the arm showing some bruising inside the arm and some scratches.

On Byers:

Peretti: Okay. State's Exhibit 71C is the buttock region and here--there was evidence of genital mutilation. This is the back, here's the anal orifice. There are multiple cutting wounds here around the anal orifice and the perineum area, the piece--the area between the um, below the anal orifice.

Davis: Doctor, did you also make a finding that the anal and rectal mucosa were hyperemic and injected?

Peretti: Yes, I did.

Davis: Can you explain what that means?

Peretti: Well, it means that it was red and injected, there was some capillary dilatation there.

Davis: And there were signs of physical trauma as far as abrasions and lacerations to the buttocks area and the area immediately surrounding the anus? Is that correct?

...

Peretti: There's cutting wounds and abrasions, yes. And State's Exhibit 70C is a close-up of the genital mutilation. Here, we have multiple gouging type injuries where the skin has just been pulled out. The skin overlying the shaft of the penis was carved off. What you see here, the part--this red part that's in the photograph, that's the shaft of the penis after the skin has been removed and you can see above the scrotal sac and testes are all missing. The whole genital area is missing except for the internal aspects of the shaft of the penis and around this area you can see the multiple gouging type wounds, stab wounds and cutting wounds.

Davis: Doctor, the gouge wounds and cutting wounds you referred to around the genital area, how did those, in your opinion, how would those wounds have been inflicted? What type of manner would those have been inflicted in?

Peretti: Well, it could be when you see these type of irregular cutting wounds, gouging wounds, not knowing the instrument, you can get these type of wounds from a knife, piece of glass, usually the knife or the object is being twisted and the victim is moving to get those irregular edges. State's Exhibit 69C is a photograph showing the legs, the area of genital mutilation and you can also see the binding injuries of the left wrist but also here, we can note in the um, on the thighs, on the top of the thighs and inner aspects of the thighs, we have multiple contusions or bruising inside the thighs and you can see that here.

Davis: Doctor, what would cause that type of bruising and that type of injury?

Peretti: Well, these type of injuries we normally see in a--female rape victims when they're trying to spread the legs to, for penetration or it may be hit with an object also, that's a possibility. Okay, I'll take these a little out of order here, State's Exhibit 65C is a close-up of the bruises inside the thigh. State's Exhibit 72C is a photograph showing the back of the anal region, the thighs and the bruising situated on the thighs and also, on the backs of the legs, the lower legs and here you can see all the bruising. There's some sort of pattern here, you've got these two linear bands of contusion and in between here, you have this space which is called pallor which is uninvolved so that indicates in this part an object such as a piece of wood, a large object was inflicted there to cause--struck there to cause this type of injury. Also, you can see on the back of the legs what we would classify as defense wounds too or bruising to the back of the legs. State's Exhibit 61C just shows a small abrasion to the back of the neck.

Yes. I read that. He's not saying there was sexual assault. He's not even saying that the injuries are consistent with the anal rape of children. He's resisting saying it, in fact.

There was no finding of sexual assault. It's an allegation made by the prosecution. But they couldn't find anyone qualified to testify about it who'd agree with them.

[compared2what?]

I'm not saying anything controversial here.

I'm pretty sure that Peretti and the prosecution themselves have both conceded that he didn't make a finding of sexual assault.

Because he didn't. It's not, like, my interpretation.