PDA

View Full Version : Why did the WM3 do it?


Pages : [1] 2

AngelontheRiver
12-28-2011, 10:25 PM
I'm interested in discussing theories of what actually motivated these three to commit the murders.

Compassionate Reader
12-28-2011, 11:32 PM
Well, according to the State, it was a cult ritual killing. Since everyone with any intelligence now realizes how bogus that motive is, the newest theory that I've heard is it was a "thrill kill." The big problem with that motive is that, generally speaking, thrill killers display their victims instead of trying to hide them. So, there is no motive for the WMFree to have done this crime - because they're innocent.

AngelontheRiver
12-28-2011, 11:54 PM
Well, according to the State, it was a cult ritual killing. Since everyone with any intelligence now realizes how bogus that motive is, the newest theory that I've heard is it was a "thrill kill." The big problem with that motive is that, generally speaking, thrill killers display their victims instead of trying to hide them. So, there is no motive for the WMFree to have done this crime - because they're innocent.

I understand that you believe they are innocent. That's your right. I don't want to debate that with you. I just wanted a thread to discuss why they did it. If you don't think they did it, you probably don't have such a theory.

WhiteLilly
12-29-2011, 01:04 AM
I believe they did it because A) Damien Echols is bat***** crazy and wanted, in his own words, to feel what it was like to kill somebody (as evidenced by the defence's 500) and B) Jason Baldwin is an evil person and Jessie Miskelley was just a drunk, bored follower who went along with it. JMO of course.

LadyL
12-29-2011, 01:21 AM
Damien thought it'd be a good idea 'cause he's whacked and the others were too stupid/lacked the moral compass to even utter the word "no" to their deranged friend.

I think the only motive was that Damien wanted to 'experience' it.

AngelontheRiver
12-29-2011, 06:19 PM
I don't think it was planned in advance. I don't see how it could have been.

iluvmua
12-29-2011, 08:19 PM
Thrill Kill..... simple as that

AngelontheRiver
12-29-2011, 09:33 PM
Thrill Kill..... simple as that

I suspect so myself. Not Satan worship or whatever.

Cappuccino
12-30-2011, 02:38 AM
Because they lost their temper with Stevie Branch, and the other two were witnesses to a horrible crime.

Oh no wait.... that would be the real motive for the crime, not the imaginary one. Sorry, I'm in the wrong thread.

I Must Break You
12-30-2011, 06:05 PM
I suspect so myself. Not Satan worship or whatever.

So I don't have a theory obviously since I think they are innocent... But I am curious about something. Nons belief that the WM3 are guilty hinges on Jessie's confession(s), because without that there is no evidence. Sooo my problem here is in Jessie's later confession he says the problems with his earlier confession was because he was trying to throw the police off... ok. Now in this confession where is he is saying he made stuff up to throw the police off and is now going to set the record straight, still included an esbat and a briefcase with the three boys pictures in it....and now the leading theory amongst nons is that it was a thrill kill, yet the later confession that nons now cling to disputes that by bringing in the satanic stuff and premeditation. So he is setting the record straight by telling more lies to throw the police off again I guess, or more likely he had no freakin idea what he was talking about.

AngelontheRiver
12-30-2011, 06:13 PM
I am not a "non" -I am a human being. I joined to discuss information about cases. I started this thread to discuss why they might have done it without constantly debating their guilt. Please stop. You are already doing that on every other thread.

AngelontheRiver
12-30-2011, 06:16 PM
It is likely they did delve into the occult. Damien obviously had an interest. But I don't think that it was the primary motivation.

I have realized that if his plan was to sacrifice three innocents and eighteen years for wealth and power- it worked. Gag.

I Must Break You
12-30-2011, 06:21 PM
I am not a "non" -I am a human being. I joined to discuss information about cases. I started this thread to discuss why they might have done it without constantly debating their guilt. Please stop. You are already doing that on every other thread.

Honestly I never said hey angelontheriver the non... nope I presented a question, and I'm sorry but I seriously doubt on what is a neutral ground such as Websleuths that you will be able to have the conversation your looking for since this issue is so divided. In other words any conversation you start here or anywhere aside from the Hoax board is going to lead to a debate of their innocence or guilt... that is the crux of the case. Please don't forget this is an open forum.

UdbCrzy2
12-30-2011, 06:54 PM
It is likely they did delve into the occult. Damien obviously had an interest. But I don't think that it was the primary motivation.

I have realized that if his plan was to sacrifice three innocents and eighteen years for wealth and power- it worked. Gag.

If anyone looks at the case files at Callahans they can see that he had an interest in demonology and satin worship before the murderers. I thought LE considered him a 'dabbler'. In his 500-mental health files it does document his family being very concerned about it and noted that he was homicidal and were afraid he would hurt someone.

I believe it was a thrill kill and I also believe that there was a reason that the boys were stripped naked and bound. As if they were not small enough for the WMGuilty to overpower. Some will argue that the boys were not raped because there is no DNA brought into the trial.

You have to remember that DNA was not done back then. The only one doing DNA after the trial was the defense. And I seriously doubt they would bring any incriminating evidence to light. The prosecution already had their verdict, so there was no need for them to continue.

Why else would the boys have been bound and stripped naked?

AngelontheRiver
12-30-2011, 09:55 PM
If anyone looks at the case files at Callahans they can see that he had an interest in demonology and satin worship before the murderers. I thought LE considered him a 'dabbler'. In his 500-mental health files it does document his family being very concerned about it and noted that he was homicidal and were afraid he would hurt someone.

I believe it was a thrill kill and I also believe that there was a reason that the boys were stripped naked and bound. As if they were not small enough for the WMGuilty to overpower. Some will argue that the boys were not raped because there is no DNA brought into the trial.

You have to remember that DNA was not done back then. The only one doing DNA after the trial was the defense. And I seriously doubt they would bring any incriminating evidence to light. The prosecution already had their verdict, so there was no need for them to continue.

Why else would the boys have been bound and stripped naked?

I agree. Damien was probably sexually abused himself. There is no other reason for the boys being stripped. I think Damien and Jason were totally trying to be as 'evil' as a couple of backwoods losers can be and Jessie was a stupid hanger on. He'd previously been in trouble for beating up a little girl.

Compassionate Reader
12-30-2011, 10:48 PM
I, too, believe that Damien was sexually abused - by Jerry Driver. However, I don't believe that the abuse was long standing. I believe that, for the most part, Damien resisted Driver's advances. However, Damien said that Driver often threatened to send his juveniles to jail if they didn't pleasure him. So, Damien wasn't the only one who suffered Driver's abuse.

deelytful1
12-30-2011, 10:58 PM
Wow! This is a really great thread, because I too would love to hear a sane, rational reason as to WHY these boys would commit such a heinous crime? A prove-able conclusion that makes ANY sense backed up by more than Damien's mental health record and the fact that 2 young men were such SHEEP that they would follow his command?
After that, please put these 3 young men at the crime scene for me, please.. Thanks!

AngelontheRiver
12-30-2011, 11:12 PM
They were all three hoodlums. It was a matter of time before they went to jail for something. The telling thing about Echols is how he always plays the "poor me" card. Very manipulative.

AngelontheRiver
12-30-2011, 11:13 PM
Any explanation for their actions wouldn't be very rational because Damien was not rational. He was nuts.

Compassionate Reader
12-30-2011, 11:19 PM
They were all three hoodlums. It was a matter of time before they went to jail for something. The telling thing about Echols is how he always plays the "poor me" card. Very manipulative.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but after being on Death Row for a crime he didn't commit for over eighteen years, I think he has a right to complain of his treatment.

Compassionate Reader
12-30-2011, 11:24 PM
Any explanation for their actions wouldn't be very rational because Damien was not rational. He was nuts.

Of course, this is your opinion. My opinion is that he was a depressed teen, possibly more depressed than many, who needed an outlet for his creativity. He was not a murderer, even if he were nuts, which he isn't and wasn't.

Dysthymia
12-31-2011, 02:05 AM
I think that it is entirely within forum rules to start a thread about something and expect it to be kept on topic. The topic of this one is Why did the WM3 do it?

I believe these murders were entirely opportunistic and committed by 3 cowards with "issues" The 3 were hanging out in the woods, listening to Echols' bull**** about magic(k) blood drinking, and demons and then 3 defenseless, eight year old boys came along. The teens were drinking and jumped up on all the crap Echols had been spouting and what better victims than 3 little boys who couldn't fight back? One victim for each of them. Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley attacked them, got carried away and murdered them because they wanted to experience what it felt like to kill someone.

Why they stripped the children naked and tied their hands to their feet with their shoestrings, no one knows but the murderers. But when Echols spoke to law enforcement, he helpfully filled them in on things of ritualistic nature, giving his opinion as to why someone would commit a murder like this one and what to look for in a suspect. In my opinion, he was bragging about the crime because he thought LE was too dumb to catch on to what he was saying.

wyome
12-31-2011, 02:28 AM
I think that it is entirely within forum rules to start a thread about something and expect it to be kept on topic. The topic of this one is Why did the WM3 do it?

I believe these murders were entirely opportunistic and committed by 3 cowards with "issues" The 3 were hanging out in the woods, listening to Echols' bull**** about magic(k) blood drinking, and demons and then 3 defenseless, eight year old boys came along. The teens were drinking and jumped up on all the crap Echols had been spouting and what better victims than 3 little boys who couldn't fight back? One victim for each of them. Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley attacked them, got carried away and murdered them because they wanted to experience what it felt like to kill someone.

Why they stripped the children naked and tied their hands to their feet with their shoestrings, no one knows but the murderers. But when Echols spoke to law enforcement, he helpfully filled them in on things of ritualistic nature, giving his opinion as to why someone would commit a murder like this one and what to look for in a suspect. In my opinion, he was bragging about the crime because he thought LE was too dumb to catch on to what he was saying.


Ah! We're both up in the wee hours of the morning and I was just about to give my two cents....and then your comment popped up and you nailed it. No need to comment further except to say thank you for sparing me the time to type what you just did :), and a big-hearted hello to AngelontheRiver -- you have balls as big as Brooklyn for starting this topic here! :)

Dysthymia
12-31-2011, 02:41 AM
Can't sleep sometimes. And, yes, AngelontheRiver is a brave one. I often get my feelings very, very, extremely hurt.

Good night, late night friend!

Peace.

Cappuccino
12-31-2011, 09:59 AM
I think some of you guys are being a little unfair on my post. I'd like to point out that the medical examiner recorded severe injuries to Stevie's face and described Christopher and Michael's faces as peaceful, "like two babies who had cried themselves to sleep." Therefore my theory that someobody lost their temper with Stevie first, and attacked the other two afterwards, is a perfectly sensible one to raise in any thread about motive. Sure, we'll all differ about the identity of who lost their temper, but the motive itself is a perfectly sensible suggestion.

AngelontheRiver
12-31-2011, 10:32 AM
Ah! We're both up in the wee hours of the morning and I was just about to give my two cents....and then your comment popped up and you nailed it. No need to comment further except to say thank you for sparing me the time to type what you just did :), and a big-hearted hello to AngelontheRiver -- you have balls as big as Brooklyn for starting this topic here! :)

Thanks! First hello I've gotten. Luckily for me, I don't care as much about my feelings as I do the truth. <modsnip>

AngelontheRiver
12-31-2011, 10:34 AM
Can't sleep sometimes. And, yes, AngelontheRiver is a brave one. I often get my feelings very, very, extremely hurt.

Good night, late night friend!

Peace.

Thank you, friend.

UdbCrzy2
12-31-2011, 11:16 PM
Any explanation for their actions wouldn't be very rational because Damien was not rational. He was nuts.

He still has mental problems. That is something that never goes away. He was institutionalized several times before he murdered the children.

It is documented that he was homicidal and dangerous to others.

I'm sure that his wife, Lorri has her handsful. She probably feels as though she is like his mother instead of his wife.

Compassionate Reader
01-01-2012, 10:41 AM
He still has mental problems. That is something that never goes away. He was institutionalized several times before he murdered the children.

Then why are there no reports of "mental problems" during the 18 plus years he was unjustly incarcerated?

It is documented that he was homicidal and dangerous to others.

It is documented that he said those things and that mental health professionals, following his lead, rubber stamped his statements. Again, while unjustly incarcerated, where is the evidence that he was homicidal or even violent? Over 18 years is a long time for such a mental case not to exhibit any symptoms of his "mental problems." His medications were taken away in county lock up and, by his own account, he had some problems at that time because he was removed from anti depressants cold turkey. After that period, though, he has not been taking any medication for his supposed mental problems, but yet has had no "episodes" to indicate the existence of such problems. That leads me to believe that his "mental problems" were nothing more than teen depression and angst.

I'm sure that his wife, Lorri has her handsful. She probably feels as though she is like his mother instead of his wife.

Lori has had her hands full for quite some time now. She has tirelessly worked to get her husband and his co defendants free. I am sure that she will continue to work until they are exonerated. I disagree with your opinion. I think Lori is working as and feeling like the good wife that she is.

cami
01-05-2012, 03:54 PM
I suspect so myself. Not Satan worship or whatever.

I agree.

cami
01-05-2012, 04:05 PM
It is likely they did delve into the occult. Damien obviously had an interest. But I don't think that it was the primary motivation.

I have realized that if his plan was to sacrifice three innocents and eighteen years for wealth and power- it worked. Gag.

None of us can guess what motivated this crime. That's why prosecutors are never required to prove a motive. Since there is no physical evidence to follow, they had to believe the motive was satanism as that's what they were being told and there was proof at least from Damien. We all know others can be coerced into a crime.

Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go.

Seems thrill kill might be the only motive left. I don't think it was planned, it was spur of the moment but I beleive it's something Damien fantasized about.

cami
01-05-2012, 04:09 PM
Wow! This is a really great thread, because I too would love to hear a sane, rational reason as to WHY these boys would commit such a heinous crime? A prove-able conclusion that makes ANY sense backed up by more than Damien's mental health record and the fact that 2 young men were such SHEEP that they would follow his command?
After that, please put these 3 young men at the crime scene for me, please.. Thanks!

There is no sane, rational motive for murder so you won't ever get your answer.

Nova
01-05-2012, 07:25 PM
Thanks! First hello I've gotten. Luckily for me, I don't care as much about my feelings as I do the truth.<mosdsnip>.

I'm sorry if you weren't welcomed properly, Angel. This case seems to raise everyone's temperature.

Welcome to WS! I hope you'll feel free to speak your mind, whether or not you and I agree.

Nova
01-05-2012, 07:27 PM
...Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go....

Do you have a link for that? It's my understanding that the FBI has never been able to find evidence of ritual "Satanic" killings.

Compassionate Reader
01-05-2012, 10:35 PM
Welcome back, Nova. Long time no see!

Pensfan
01-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Wow! This is a really great thread, because I too would love to hear a sane, rational reason as to WHY these boys would commit such a heinous crime? A prove-able conclusion that makes ANY sense backed up by more than Damien's mental health record and the fact that 2 young men were such SHEEP that they would follow his command?
After that, please put these 3 young men at the crime scene for me, please.. Thanks!
BBM
Damien's frightening mental health assessment is more than enough. He is schizophrenic AND bipolar (both incurable mental health disorders). In addition at the time of the murders, Damien Echols was incompetently prescribed a medication (which his mom had just filled) that is contraindicated for those who are bipolar because it is well known to make bipolars extremely MANIC.

Damien has bizarre finger positioning and pill-rolling finger movements on the latest videos since his release. That is tardive dyskinesia. He is taking antipsychotic medications. (Spasibo tebe, Gospodi.)
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse


WELCOME TO WEBSLEUTHS, ANGEL!!!!

JBounds
01-05-2012, 11:31 PM
None of us can guess what motivated this crime. That's why prosecutors are never required to prove a motive. Since there is no physical evidence to follow, they had to believe the motive was satanism as that's what they were being told and there was proof at least from Damien. We all know others can be coerced into a crime.

Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go.

Seems thrill kill might be the only motive left. I don't think it was planned, it was spur of the moment but I beleive it's something Damien fantasized about.
Yet, Damien is not a Satanist. He is a Wiccan. John Mark Byers was a jewel cutter who had a knife with his own son's blood on it. Did they ever find a knife like that in Damien's possession?

There's more evidence that points to other people than there will ever be against the WM3.

UdbCrzy2
01-05-2012, 11:36 PM
No, they found that knife in the water behind Jason Baldwins mobile home.

There is quite a bit of evidence including their own confessions and Echols mental health history that convicted the three who later plead guilty.

AngelontheRiver
01-05-2012, 11:36 PM
BBM
Damien's frightening mental health assessment is more than enough. He is schizophrenic AND bipolar (both incurable mental health disorders). In addition at the time of the murders, Damien Echols was incompetently prescribed a medication (which his mom had just filled) that is contraindicated for those who are bipolar because it is well known to make bipolars extremely MANIC.

Damien has bizarre finger positioning and pill-rolling finger movements on the latest videos since his release. That is tardive dyskinesia. He is taking antipsychotic medications. (Spasibo tebe, Gospodi.)
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse


WELCOME TO WEBSLEUTHS, ANGEL!!!!

Thank you! Good catch. I haven't seen the signs from the antipsychotics because I avoid looking at him.

krimekat
01-06-2012, 12:22 AM
<modsnip>
Honestly & respectfully, welcome to all New Webseluthers! This is a great place where we all have opinions, tons of experience & great insight, but we must play by the rules (carry them with me in my siggie). I love when we all have access to the same information but still don't see the same logic -- makes us human. Bullies are not allowed :nono:

:welcome:

Compassionate Reader
01-06-2012, 01:09 PM
Please note that George Woods' testimony was in February, 2001. There is no indication in that document or anything else that I have seen or read that Damien is on those medications, or any others, at the present time. In fact, at the August 19, 2011, hearing, he swore that he was on no drugs at all. Although, if I had been on Death Row, in almost total isolation, for over 18 years, I would be incoherent. The fact that Damien is articulate and well-spoken speaks highly, IMO, of his ability to overcome adversity.

Compassionate Reader
01-06-2012, 01:21 PM
No, they found that knife in the water behind Jason Baldwins mobile home.

That knife was never forensically linked to the case or anyone connected to it. In fact, there is testimony in the Rule 37 abstracts (who said it escapes me, but it may have been Joseph Samuel Dwyer) that someone saw Jason's mom throw either that knife or one like it into the lake before the murders.

There is quite a bit of evidence including their own confessions and Echols mental health history that convicted the three who later plead guilty.

No one "confessed" except Jessie and his stories are so error-filled as to be laughable. Echols mental health history, although making him a person of interest, is not sufficient evidence to convict him of these murders and, in fact, was not part of the evidence used in his trial. It was introduced by the defense during the punishment phase in an attempt to mitigate the sentence. It didn't work, so I guess it doesn't really prove that Echols was as mentally ill as some people seem to believe.

As to pleading "guilty," we all know about that Alford Plea and that, with that bogus "guilty" plea, they retained the right to maintain their innocence. Additionally, what kind of justice system would release three vicious child killers on time served it they really believed them to be guilty? It was all political, and most people recognize the stench for what it was - political expediency and CYA on the part of the State of Arkansas.

krimekat
01-06-2012, 01:26 PM
I'm amazed I didn't follow this story when it happened. I wasn't that far away (StL in grad school). In any case, I came to this case about a year ago with an open mind & read everything & came to this conclusion:

Why did the W3M do it? :waitasec:

I couldn't come up with a plausible reason why 2 friends would coerce a "dumb kid" (nothing meant but just "that") who they didn't even hang with & out-of-the-blue "thrill kill" 3 little boys playing in the sewer (yeah, we did this as kids, too). Even if they were drinking or high, why would they do this? :waitasec:

We all did stupid things as teens: I was a goth & loved heavy metal, I read about the occult, and my parents thought I was possessed at one time & did pump me full of drugs for a while (80s). But I had loving parents that supported me through this (from what I gather, DE did not) and I am who I am today -- open-minded & non-judgmental (at least on the outside) to the extreme sometimes.

Motive is the reason why I believe the W3M didn't commit this crime. I believe the step-father is guilty of this crime, and I don't believe he did this by himself . . . IMHO only. (can you tell I am treading lightly?)

Again, the topic is Why did the W3M do it? To me nothing logically leads me to the W3M being guilty of this crime.

:innocent:

Compassionate Reader
01-06-2012, 01:41 PM
krimekat,

Which step father? Well, technically there's only one step father since Mark adopted Chris. But, for my anal retentive mind, do you mean TH?

krimekat
01-06-2012, 01:52 PM
Hobbs & his guitar playing buddy (he admitted to smoking meth -- that makes you do some crazy chit, now)

Pensfan
01-06-2012, 06:40 PM
Please note that George Woods' testimony was in February, 2001. There is no indication in that document or anything else that I have seen or read that Damien is on those medications, or any others, at the present time. In fact, at the August 19, 2011, hearing, he swore that he was on no drugs at all. Although, if I had been on Death Row, in almost total isolation, for over 18 years, I would be incoherent. The fact that Damien is articulate and well-spoken speaks highly, IMO, of his ability to overcome adversity.
As a psych nurse with 3 decades of experience working with inpatient schizophrenics, I can clearly see Damien Echol's tardive dyskinesia symptoms and so can anyone else that watches his peculiar hand/finger movements in his recent interviews.

Pensfan
verified on Websleuths as a psychiatric mental health nurse

justthinkin
01-06-2012, 08:06 PM
As a psych nurse with 3 decades of experience working with inpatient schizophrenics, I can clearly see Damien Echol's tardive dyskinesia symptoms and so can anyone else that watches his peculiar hand/finger movements in his recent interviews.

Pensfan
verified on Websleuths as a psychiatric mental health nurse

Thank you, Pensfan. I've seen Damien's blunt affect, don't believe he is or ever was bipolar I or II, mainly from watching him, and because when asked on the stand to describe his manic episodes, he was clueless about what constitutes mania.
IIRC he stated that when manic, he withdrew. I know very well that Manics don't withdraw; they engage. I am just curious why Echols would put his illness off to being Bipolar vs. schizophrenia. Perhaps he thought bipolar was the more socially acceptable of the two?

Jack Echols gave a good description of Damien's earlier years on Callahan.8k.com, and it seems to me Damien has been suffering with schizophrenic tendencies since childhood whether diagnosed back then or not, and yet, I can't imagine how he could come off death row without being a blithering idiot having had no medication in all those years to control his illness. This puzzles me to no end.

I was under the impression with schizophrenia showing up that early in life, the prognosis was not good at all, and am therefore quite surprised Echols is doing as good as he is. But it also bothers me in a way since I know very well, a psychopath will pretend to be many things if it suits his purpose. What do you think are the odds Echols is a schizophrenic psychopath (Is that even possible?)or just a plain psychopath?

Can you point me to a video where I can view his tardive dyskinesia for myself? I have not noticed Echols having the hand movements you spoke of.

If there's anything else about Echols that you notice that relates to schizophrenia or other illness, please do point it out.
thanks again,
jt

JBean
01-06-2012, 08:25 PM
For reference- if you start a thread about a topic and members want to challenge the answers that come about on that topic- they can.
No one point of view is afforded a single thread in which only that point of view is allowed.

All threads are going to lead to basically the same road- are they guilty or innocent?There is just no way around it. It will be debated from now until eternity.

Compassionate Reader
01-06-2012, 08:45 PM
I find it interesting that someone who is a mental health professional can watch a video and diagnose Damien as having tardive dyskinesia symptoms and the diagnosis is accepted, but people won't accept the interpretation of certified forensic pathologists, seven of them IIRC, who said that the wounds to the boys were caused by postmortem animal predation. It just seems like a double standard to me.

From what I read about the condition, it doesn't seem to be something that would cause a sufferer to commit a triple homicide. It seems to be akin to Tourette's Syndrome in that it causes involuntary movements, tardive dyskinesia limiting those movements to the hands and/or face. I fail to see the significance of this condition, if Damien does suffer from it (which I doubt). IMO, it is irrelevant.

Nefriahaia
01-06-2012, 09:40 PM
IIRC, tardive dyskenisia can result from years of Thorazine use.

Nova
01-06-2012, 09:47 PM
No, they found that knife in the water behind Jason Baldwins mobile home.

There is quite a bit of evidence including their own confessions and Echols mental health history that convicted the three who later plead guilty.

You know perfectly well it was a public lake and not some place private to Baldwin. And there was no way to connect that knife to the crime.

All this focus on Echols' juvenile psych records doesn't begin to explain how he got two other boys to collaborate and how he managed to commit three murders without leaving a single trace of himself.

Cappuccino
01-06-2012, 09:53 PM
As a psych nurse with 3 decades of experience working with inpatient schizophrenics, I can clearly see Damien Echol's tardive dyskinesia symptoms and so can anyone else that watches his peculiar hand/finger movements in his recent interviews.



If Echols has that condition now, I think he always did have it - by always, I mean from the time PL1 was filmed, at least. He's always done that thing with pursing up his mouth, I've never really noticed any hand movements though, now or then.

UdbCrzy2
01-06-2012, 10:56 PM
As a psych nurse with 3 decades of experience working with inpatient schizophrenics, I can clearly see Damien Echol's tardive dyskinesia symptoms and so can anyone else that watches his peculiar hand/finger movements in his recent interviews.

Pensfan
verified on Websleuths as a psychiatric mental health nurse

Echols claims that he had to 'learn to walk again' because of being shackled. Could this be another symptom of his medication?

I did notice his finger rolling when he interviews. He's always seated so I never got to see the 'shuffle', but that's what he claims.

And now he also wears blue tinted sunglasses indoors, which I think is very weird.

Compassionate Reader
01-07-2012, 12:34 AM
Echols claims that he had to 'learn to walk again' because of being shackled. Could this be another symptom of his medication?

I did notice his finger rolling when he interviews. He's always seated so I never got to see the 'shuffle', but that's what he claims.

And now he also wears blue tinted sunglasses indoors, which I think is very weird.

The sunglasses are to shield his eyes which have become sensitive to sunlight due to the years when he never had sunlight. I believe the "shuffling" is gone now and he's walking normally. Personally, I think that the finger rolling is just a nervous tick that will eventually disappear when he no longer is thrust before the cameras so often.

Dysthymia
01-07-2012, 01:28 AM
Many medications cause photosensitivity and wearing tinted glasses or sunglasses make facing the sunlight a lot more comfortable. His wearing the blue shades and some of his involuntary actions do indicate that he may take psychiatric medications that cause the side effects he exhibits.

Echols may be taking some type of medication since he was diagnosed many times in the past as being depressed, bi-polar and/or schizophrenic. Those mental illnesses do not just "go away" and a person with a mental illness cannot "heal themselves" and it is a tragic fallacy to believe that they can do so because there are times when the illness is gone, for a while, but the medication is the reason for the calm and without it, serious mental illness will come back.

If Mr. Echols needs to take psychiatric medication, then it is best that he continues to do so. It isn't something his supporters should be upset about, they shouldn't wish to see him suffer, I don't understand that way of thinking at all.

JBounds
01-07-2012, 01:46 AM
There is quite a bit of evidence including their own confessions and Echols mental health history that convicted the three who later plead guilty.
A confession that Pulitzer prize winning social psycologist, Richard Ofshe proved that it was cohersed and a false confession.

As for Echols him having a mental health issue doesn't prove a thing. The only evidence against Jason were items seized from his room. Concert t-shirts and posters. Damien’s notebook which included Metallica lyrics as well as his reading list was used against him. So they were picked on because of what they read, listen to and wore.

Explain how there could be zero dna evidence from the three convicted men was found at the crime scene or on the victims. If it’s so easy for Terry Hobbs’ hair to have been transferred to Michael Moore’s body, please explain how the three convicted men were able to completely remove all traces of themselves from the crime scene and the victim’s bodies.

If you truly believe that they are guilty of these crimes and that they murdered three young boys in the woods, in the dark, without leaving any DNA evidence from themselves but also leaving DNA from Hobbs and Jacoby intact.

claudicici
01-07-2012, 02:04 AM
Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go.



:waitasec: oh ,really?

Pensfan
01-07-2012, 05:40 PM
The sunglasses are to shield his eyes which have become sensitive to sunlight due to the years when he never had sunlight. I believe the "shuffling" is gone now and he's walking normally. Personally, I think that the finger rolling is just a nervous tick that will eventually disappear when he no longer is thrust before the cameras so often.

It only took Damien Echol's rods in his retina 1-5 minutes to adjust to the sunlight once released from prison. He was not kept in a pitch black dungeon.

Damien Echols has not been thrusted in front of cameras. Damien Echols voluntarily steps in front of cameras.

Tardive dyskinesia symptoms are side effects of antipsychotic medications. They have been studied for HALF A CENTURY. They are not nervous ticks which will resolve with the discontinuance of cameras.

See example of a severe pill-rolling tremor here:
Tremor - YouTube

See Damien Echols pill-rolling with his right hand’s index finger and thumb at 14 seconds, 54 seconds, 106 seconds, 145 seconds. Notice the peculiar positioning of his right hand during all of the interview. Like many other psychiatric patients that feel self-conscious about their tardive dyskinesia pill-rolling tremor, Damien positions his right hand when at rest in a peculiar position in an attempt to prevent his TD tremor from being occurring (keeps thumb and forefinger apart) and being extremely obvious.
Damien Echols on conditions in jail - YouTube




See Damien Echols pill-rolling tardive dyskinesia symptom again here at 2:12 while his right hand is at rest on the table. Notice the peculiar positioning of his right hand during most of the interview and all of his other interviews. Damien positions his right hand in such a peculiar position when it is at rest in an attempt to prevent his pill-rolling tremor from occurring. He must keeping his thumb and index finger apart while his hand is at rest or his fingers will pill roll. TD tremors do not always manifest equally bilaterally, but may appear more significantly on one side than the opposite side. I can’t see Damien’s left hand in the videos so it is unknown if his left hand is also pill rolling.
Jason Baldwin on celebrity support behind the West Memphis 3 - YouTube


Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse

Cappuccino
01-07-2012, 08:57 PM
A confession that Pulitzer prize winning social psycologist, Richard Ofshe proved that it was cohersed and a false confession.

As for Echols him having a mental health issue doesn't prove a thing. The only evidence against Jason were items seized from his room. Concert t-shirts and posters. Damienís notebook which included Metallica lyrics as well as his reading list was used against him. So they were picked on because of what they read, listen to and wore.

Explain how there could be zero dna evidence from the three convicted men was found at the crime scene or on the victims. If itís so easy for Terry Hobbsí hair to have been transferred to Michael Mooreís body, please explain how the three convicted men were able to completely remove all traces of themselves from the crime scene and the victimís bodies.

If you truly believe that they are guilty of these crimes and that they murdered three young boys in the woods, in the dark, without leaving any DNA evidence from themselves but also leaving DNA from Hobbs and Jacoby intact.

BBM.

This is what I've never seen anybody explain. Whenever you raise it you get either...

a) Ditchwater washed all the DNA away

b) The Hobbs' hair was secondary transfer

How can people not see that those two explanations contradict each other? If the ditchwater washed the DNA away, it should have washed the Hobbs' hair away too. It should also have washed away all the stray hairs belonging to the three victims, but plenty of those were found.

Compassionate Reader
01-07-2012, 10:58 PM
OMG! I must have tardive dyskinesia! My finger twitches like the one in the top video from time to time.:crazy:

I'm sure that it's a real illness. However, I doubt that it can be accurately diagnosed by watching a few videos of someone. Isn't it possible that over 18 years on Death Row might have made him a bit nervous this soon after his release? Couldn't that nervousness be exhibited through these gestures?

Also, people always point to his "finger to the mouth" gesture like it means that he's lying. However, the truth of the matter is that he was ashamed of his teeth. It is an attempt to cover up his teeth - not lies.

I have seen videos of Damien while still in prison that I don't think exhibited any of the "pill rolling" that is discussed. He seemed more at ease in those videos because he was in familiar surroundings. Look at the last interview with Bruce and Joe.

However, he is becoming more comfortable now. In some of the recent Q & A sessions following a PL3 screening I don't remember any unusual hand movements. In short, I think that too much is being made of some of his mannerisms.

Oh, I believe someone somewhere mentioned that Damien never smiled. I said that I would find a picture of him smiling and post it. Here ya go:

http://www.zap2it.com/news/pictures/wreg-photos-west-memphis-3-20110818,0,5284354.photogallery?index=1

Compassionate Reader
01-08-2012, 01:19 AM
Here's a video of Damien after a little more time had passed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=0HXqtAnZTcg

I see an articulate, confident young man. I don't see pin-rolling fingers or even fingers to the mouth anymore. Could it be that he is actually adjusting to freedom and all that stuff was nervousness because he had been locked away from society for so long?

melissasmom
01-08-2012, 04:22 PM
Here's a video of Damien after a little more time had passed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=0HXqtAnZTcg

I see an articulate, confident young man. I don't see pin-rolling fingers or even fingers to the mouth anymore. Could it be that he is actually adjusting to freedom and all that stuff was nervousness because he had been locked away from society for so long?

I wanted to comment on the TD and "pill-rolling", etc. I watched these videos, and while I can see that some might think he is doing the rolling thing with his fingers, it might also be just a nervous mannerism. I don't really have much of an opinion on that either way.

But the main thing I wanted to comment on was TD itself. I did a little research on tardive dyskenesia a few years ago. My doctor had prescribed me Seroquel for BPD, and I started having symptoms of TD. It was horrible and was the reason I stopped taking it. I distinctly remember reading that TD is sometimes permanent, and I thought that was kinda scary. Mine wasn't, the TD stopped as soon as I stopped the medication. BUT, if Damien seems to have some of these mannerisms, couldn't it be from some period before when he WAS taking meds? Making it is something he will always have. Just a thought.

PS. ALso, if he does have TD, he is not necessarily taking something for schizophrenia, I say from my own experience. I took the Seroquel because I was bi-polar. Maybe he said he is not taking any drugs, but maybe he is and he feels it is not anyones business. :)

annkitty0630
01-08-2012, 05:22 PM
None of us can guess what motivated this crime. That's why prosecutors are never required to prove a motive. Since there is no physical evidence to follow, they had to believe the motive was satanism as that's what they were being told and there was proof at least from Damien. We all know others can be coerced into a crime.

Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go.

Seems thrill kill might be the only motive left. I don't think it was planned, it was spur of the moment but I beleive it's something Damien fantasized about.

Hi Cam!! Are you seriously kidding me, you are now in the total belief that the WM3 committed the crime? Wow, I pretty much caved on Darlie but this one I will never give any credence to... They are completely innocent, railroaded by a god fearing public & amok prosecution that had to catch/find the killer(s) of these 3 beautiful innocent young boys.... Just my opinion of course, however, this one you have wrong my friend!! Talk to you soon!! BTW, what do you think about Jodi Arias? GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!! Ann :maddening: :woohoo: :great:

gitana1
01-09-2012, 02:37 AM
Thank you, Pensfan. I've seen Damien's blunt affect, don't believe he is or ever was bipolar I or II, mainly from watching him, and because when asked on the stand to describe his manic episodes, he was clueless about what constitutes mania.
IIRC he stated that when manic, he withdrew. I know very well that Manics don't withdraw; they engage. I am just curious why Echols would put his illness off to being Bipolar vs. schizophrenia. Perhaps he thought bipolar was the more socially acceptable of the two?

Jack Echols gave a good description of Damien's earlier years on Callahan.8k.com, and it seems to me Damien has been suffering with schizophrenic tendencies since childhood whether diagnosed back then or not, and yet, I can't imagine how he could come off death row without being a blithering idiot having had no medication in all those years to control his illness. This puzzles me to no end.

I was under the impression with schizophrenia showing up that early in life, the prognosis was not good at all, and am therefore quite surprised Echols is doing as good as he is. But it also bothers me in a way since I know very well, a psychopath will pretend to be many things if it suits his purpose. What do you think are the odds Echols is a schizophrenic psychopath (Is that even possible?)or just a plain psychopath?

Can you point me to a video where I can view his tardive dyskinesia for myself? I have not noticed Echols having the hand movements you spoke of.

If there's anything else about Echols that you notice that relates to schizophrenia or other illness, please do point it out.
thanks again,
jt

No psychologist here but isn't schizophrenia very serious with lifelong symptoms if not controlled by medications, which is, in itself, hard to do? I don't see Damien as having that. Psychopathy is something totally different. Pretty much the same as being a sociopath.

It only took Damien Echol's rods in his retina 1-5 minutes to adjust to the sunlight once released from prison. He was not kept in a pitch black dungeon.

Damien Echols has not been thrusted in front of cameras. Damien Echols voluntarily steps in front of cameras.

Tardive dyskinesia symptoms are side effects of antipsychotic medications. They have been studied for HALF A CENTURY. They are not nervous ticks which will resolve with the discontinuance of cameras.

See example of a severe pill-rolling tremor here:
Tremor - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaIN2zRQn8w)

See Damien Echols pill-rolling with his right handís index finger and thumb at 14 seconds, 54 seconds, 106 seconds, 145 seconds. Notice the peculiar positioning of his right hand during all of the interview. Like many other psychiatric patients that feel self-conscious about their tardive dyskinesia pill-rolling tremor, Damien positions his right hand when at rest in a peculiar position in an attempt to prevent his TD tremor from being occurring (keeps thumb and forefinger apart) and being extremely obvious.
Damien Echols on conditions in jail - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDBVXEARyqw)


See Damien Echols pill-rolling tardive dyskinesia symptom again here at 2:12 while his right hand is at rest on the table. Notice the peculiar positioning of his right hand during most of the interview and all of his other interviews. Damien positions his right hand in such a peculiar position when it is at rest in an attempt to prevent his pill-rolling tremor from occurring. He must keeping his thumb and index finger apart while his hand is at rest or his fingers will pill roll. TD tremors do not always manifest equally bilaterally, but may appear more significantly on one side than the opposite side. I canít see Damienís left hand in the videos so it is unknown if his left hand is also pill rolling.
Jason Baldwin on celebrity support behind the West Memphis 3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qygs2bOyov8&feature=relmfu)


Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse

Interesting stuff, Pensfan. I don't see him as having the symptoms, though. One of my brothers and I have nervous twitches, so does one of my uncles. Lots of people do. What I have seen in videos of the condition, it seems almost constant:
Alan Wilson - Tardive Dyskinesia - YouTube

Tardive Dyskinesia in young child after stopping Invega - YouTube

Of course, I'm no expert. I suppose someone could have just a little of the symptoms? I think it is very possible that Damien has been or is on anti-psychotics.

Interesting thread. I believe the three are innocent but I'm always interested in other positions and a discussion about possible motive is relevant. Sorry if the anti-psychotic symptoms discussion is off topic. I think it's very annoying when a thread always devolves into guilt or innocence debates, because I want to actually read what people have to say on the particular topic, not just the same, circular arguments. Hopefully I haven't contributed to that!

claudicici
01-09-2012, 05:32 AM
Back to motive: Please let me know if there are any nons that know of any other case where teenagers kill children that are unknown and unrelated to them.
Teenagers usually kill parents,class mates, ex-lovers,people that they blame for whatever they feel is wrong with them.
The only cases I can think of were children were killed by other children as a "thrill" kill are Mary Bell and the two boys that killed the 4 year old in England.These kids were much younger and seemed to have no understanding of the value of human life.

AngelontheRiver
01-09-2012, 11:30 AM
Back to motive: Please let me know if there are any nons that know of any other case where teenagers kill children that are unknown and unrelated to them.
Teenagers usually kill parents,class mates, ex-lovers,people that they blame for whatever they feel is wrong with them.
The only cases I can think of were children were killed by other children as a "thrill" kill are Mary Bell and the two boys that killed the 4 year old in England.These kids were much younger and seemed to have no understanding of the value of human life.


http://listverse.com/2011/05/14/top-10-young-killers/

Dysthymia
01-10-2012, 01:53 AM
Back to motive: Please let me know if there are any nons that know of any other case where teenagers kill children that are unknown and unrelated to them.
Teenagers usually kill parents,class mates, ex-lovers,people that they blame for whatever they feel is wrong with them.
The only cases I can think of were children were killed by other children as a "thrill" kill are Mary Bell and the two boys that killed the 4 year old in England.These kids were much younger and seemed to have no understanding of the value of human life.



Leopold and Loeb.

http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/histsub.html

Cappuccino
01-10-2012, 02:21 AM
Leopold and Loeb didn't murder an unrelated stranger, they murdered Loeb's 14 year old cousin.

Dysthymia
01-10-2012, 03:39 AM
Leopold and Loeb didn't murder an unrelated stranger, they murdered Loeb's 14 year old cousin.

Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb stated that they drove around that day, looking for a victim (someone small like one boy they knew but couldn't locate) and after a long while of stalking boys, Bobby Franks left the ball field and was alone. He is described as being a friend of Richard Loeb's brother (not a cousin, although one site says he was a second cousin)and since Loeb knew him, it was easy to get him into their car. He wasn't chosen because Loeb knew him.
He was taken simply because they needed a victim and he was there .

http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/thecrime.html

HoneyWest
01-10-2012, 05:09 AM
http://listverse.com/2011/05/14/top-10-young-killers/

Interesting list, indeed! Surely the murders of Stevie, Michael, and Christopher were equally, if not more heinous than many in the link provided.

So why wouldn't Damien, Jason, and Jesse be included in this list? :waitasec:

claudicici
01-10-2012, 05:20 AM
...and you guys are right in the list there are seemingly kids that killed with no motive...but looking at each case seperately the motives can be found.They are found in the way these kids grew up and in all of these cases there was actual evidence in the WM3 there is none.Leaving that completely out I feel like Damien theoretically could have commited that crime,he had enough trauma in his life that it could be a possibility ,Jessie by all accounts loved children and only lashed out in anger not in a sadistic way and Jason there is just no way at all IMO the argument that he was coerced by Damien is completely out of the question IMO.
Aside from all of that there was simply no evidence other than Jesse's words that any of them were at the crime scene.

Soulmagent
01-10-2012, 07:52 AM
Back to motive: Please let me know if there are any nons that know of any other case where teenagers kill children that are unknown and unrelated to them.
Teenagers usually kill parents,class mates, ex-lovers,people that they blame for whatever they feel is wrong with them.
The only cases I can think of were children were killed by other children as a "thrill" kill are Mary Bell and the two boys that killed the 4 year old in England.These kids were much younger and seemed to have no understanding of the value of human life.

Elizabeth olten's murder was commited an unrelated teen. Alyssa Bustamante. She was known to her however ,but in this case they were known too so I am not sure why that is a qualifer.

Cappuccino
01-10-2012, 11:46 AM
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb stated that they drove around that day, looking for a victim (someone small like one boy they knew but couldn't locate) and after a long while of stalking boys, Bobby Franks left the ball field and was alone. He is described as being a friend of Richard Loeb's brother (not a cousin, although one site says he was a second cousin)and since Loeb knew him, it was easy to get him into their car. He wasn't chosen because Loeb knew him.
He was taken simply because they needed a victim and he was there .

http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/thecrime.html

Second cousin is what I read too, and that murder wasn't a spur of the moment thrill kill either, it was pre-meditated and planned for up to 6 months in advance. Its not at all the same type of crime that the prosecution alleges happened here. And even with all the planning, they had to resort to someone who one of them knew because it was easier, and they were young and inexperienced killers.

There's not many on that top ten list who qualify either. Of the eight on the list who were teens, most killed either family members, classmates, or kids who they knew from the neighbourhood. Of those left, one is a teenage burglar who gradually escalated to killing anyone, (adult or child), who happened to be in the houses he burgled, and one should be at the top of the list of dodgiest convictions in US legal history - higher up even than the wm3. A black 14 yr old who confesses in police custody with no parent or lawyer present, and is sent to the electric chair with no appeal because his parents couldn't afford a lawyer? That wouldn't meet any modern definition of beyond reasonable doubt.

There's two left on that list who qualify as teens who went out and killed a child who was an unrelated stranger for the heck of it, which I suppose goes to show how rare that type of crime is.

justthinkin
01-10-2012, 08:15 PM
You know perfectly well it was a public lake and not some place private to Baldwin. And there was no way to connect that knife to the crime.

All this focus on Echols' juvenile psych records doesn't begin to explain how he got two other boys to collaborate and how he managed to commit three murders without leaving a single trace of himself.

Except that from visuals, it looks like the pier was 30-50 feet from the end of the Baldwin trailer. I'm not saying the lake knife was Baldwin's or that it was used in the crime. I'm just providing that the pier was quite accessible to the Baldwin trailer, and would imagine he and friends spent time sitting on said pier. It's also the pier his mom would have used if she threw a knife into the lake.

justthinkin
01-10-2012, 08:21 PM
http://listverse.com/2011/05/14/top-10-young-killers/

I notice there's at least one missing from that list, Ted Bundy, except he wasn't convicted for the murder I'm about to mention. He was alleged to have killed a 9 year old? female child in his neighborhood as a teenager. That would have been his first murder. I have no doubts it was Bundy that killed her, although he was never tried for that murder. Wasn't enough evidence left at the scene to convict.

Just thinking out loud here. Wouldn't the first murder of most serial killers be a thrill killing?

AngelontheRiver
01-10-2012, 08:46 PM
I notice there's at least one missing from that list, Ted Bundy, except he wasn't convicted for the murder I'm about to mention. He was alleged to have killed a 9 year old? female child in his neighborhood as a teenager. That would have been his first murder. I have no doubts it was Bundy that killed her, although he was never tried for that murder. Wasn't enough evidence left at the scene to convict.

Just thinking out loud here. Wouldn't the first murder of most serial killers be a thrill killing?

I would think so. He might want to know 'what it feels like.' Then he might like it.

That list is just the editor's opinion of the top ten.

Just because we don't know the felonious three's motive, doesn't mean they didn't have one. I think it was just to wreck some he**. Then they chanced into those little boys.

Cappuccino
01-10-2012, 09:43 PM
I notice there's at least one missing from that list, Ted Bundy, except he wasn't convicted for the murder I'm about to mention. He was alleged to have killed a 9 year old? female child in his neighborhood as a teenager. That would have been his first murder. I have no doubts it was Bundy that killed her, although he was never tried for that murder. Wasn't enough evidence left at the scene to convict.

Just thinking out loud here. Wouldn't the first murder of most serial killers be a thrill killing?

Wouldn't all serial killers murders basically be thrill kills? That's what makes them so frightening and evil, they kill their fellow humans for the pure fun of it. Fortunately though, they're the rarest type of killer, despite all the attention they get in the media.

When they do happen the people most at risk of a serial killer are those at the margins of society - prostitutes, homeless people, drug addicts, drifters. Children can of course fall prey to one, as can anyone else, but its rare.

When a child under 12 is murdererd, in the majority of cases the killer is a parent, step parent or someone else close to the child.

UdbCrzy2
01-10-2012, 10:22 PM
I would think so. He might want to know 'what it feels like.' Then he might like it.

That list is just the editor's opinion of the top ten.

Just because we don't know the felonious three's motive, doesn't mean they didn't have one. I think it was just to wreck some he**. Then they chanced into those little boys.

That's what teen murderer Bustamante said when she plead guilty, she 'just wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone'

Guilty Plea in Missouri "Thrill Killing" Case
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/guilty-plea-in-missouri-thrill-killing-case/

Compassionate Reader
01-10-2012, 11:10 PM
She killed her neighbor. That's usually what happens with a teen killer. They kill a relative or an acquaintance. As was previously mentioned, when young (under twelve) children are killed, most often it is a parent, step parent or family acquaintance who is the murder. One statistic that I saw said that this is true in about 61% of the cases. This case doesn't fit either scenario.

Cappuccino
01-10-2012, 11:19 PM
While we're on the subject of teens and their propensity to kill, it would be only fair to look at the other side of the story too. Youth is an exacerbating factor in false convictions...

Just like faulty eyewitness identifications and junk science, youth is a cause of wrongful convictions. A disproportionate number of exonerees were accused and convicted when they were adolescents or younger. However, insufficient attention has been paid to the unique issues that may contribute to these wrongful convictions of youth.

http://cwcy.org/WhyYouthContributes.aspx

Dysthymia
01-10-2012, 11:46 PM
Second cousin is what I read too, and that murder wasn't a spur of the moment thrill kill either, it was pre-meditated and planned for up to 6 months in advance. Its not at all the same type of crime that the prosecution alleges happened here. And even with all the planning, they had to resort to someone who one of them knew because it was easier, and they were young and inexperienced killers.




Cappucino, you and I will never agree about Leopold and Loeb or the WM3. But I truly respect your opinions here about the WM3 case. You would make an excellent attorney.

Peace.

Cappuccino
01-10-2012, 11:49 PM
Thank you. :) And I must say I always enjoy reading your posts too.

justthinkin
01-11-2012, 02:45 AM
Wouldn't all serial killers murders basically be thrill kills? That's what makes them so frightening and evil, they kill their fellow humans for the pure fun of it. Fortunately though, they're the rarest type of killer, despite all the attention they get in the media.

When they do happen the people most at risk of a serial killer are those at the margins of society - prostitutes, homeless people, drug addicts, drifters. Children can of course fall prey to one, as can anyone else, but its rare.

When a child under 12 is murdererd, in the majority of cases the killer is a parent, step parent or someone else close to the child.

It would seem that way to us, that all serial killings are thrill killings, but some serial killers can't stop themselves, and actually hate what they are doing. I'm reminded of a statement a serial killer, William Heirens, wrote in lipstick on a mirror in a victim's house, "For heaven's sake, catch me before I kill more. I cannot control myself." Doesn't sound like he was too thrilled about committing the murders he had. He was begging to be stopped, and yet wouldn't turn himself in.

I thought an excerpt from this article might explain it better than I can.

"One type of serial killer is the Visionary Serial Killer. People in this category usually hear voices that instruct the killer to execute other human beings. These killers are usually psychotic or schizophrenic. David Berkowitz, also known as the Son of Sam, is an example of a visionary serial killer.

A second type of serial killer is the Missionary Serial Killer. This type of killer often feels as if he or she has a responsibility or a special mission to rid the world of a certain specified group of people. Charles Manson would be classified under this category.

A third type of serial killer is the Lust Killer. The lust killer is often driven to kill due to a sexual motivation.

A fourth subgroup of serial killers is known as a Thrill Killer. A thrill killer takes lives because they enjoy the experience of killing.

A fifth sort of serial killer is the Power Seeker Killer, a person who enjoys having total control over
the fate of their victim.

One of the last kinds of serial killers is the Gain Serial Killer. A gain killer is one who kills to gain money or items they believe to be valuable."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lEnuh4GDMPcJ:www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/psychologicalprofiles/killer.pdf+are+serial+killer+the+same+a+thrill+kil lers%3F&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShgxaKuiJwSCcDkG73LZzUKIDpbSiruHtk-sElBMptfW7q_PH0i2dkpaQdCBs7WCLzChmPCTq2Rn88FZYqXYu cTYr5qzBlwHC3dCAbOkmggJEfb3dyPwxyWNH2gFTNVlB44e9vF&sig=AHIEtbQ40lgQ2A0l93qNZRr63PTA_ezTGg

~n/t~
01-11-2012, 07:17 AM
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/kids2/killers_2.html

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133568&page=2

~n/t~
01-11-2012, 08:34 AM
It would seem that way to us, that all serial killings are thrill killings, but some serial killers can't stop themselves, and actually hate what they are doing. I'm reminded of a statement a serial killer, William Heirens, wrote in lipstick on a mirror in a victim's house, "For heaven's sake, catch me before I kill more. I cannot control myself." Doesn't sound like he was too thrilled about committing the murders he had. He was begging to be stopped, and yet wouldn't turn himself in.

I thought an excerpt from this article might explain it better than I can.

"One type of serial killer is the Visionary Serial Killer. People in this category usually hear voices that instruct the killer to execute other human beings. These killers are usually psychotic or schizophrenic. David Berkowitz, also known as the Son of Sam, is an example of a visionary serial killer.

A second type of serial killer is the Missionary Serial Killer. This type of killer often feels as if he or she has a responsibility or a special mission to rid the world of a certain specified group of people. Charles Manson would be classified under this category.

A third type of serial killer is the Lust Killer. The lust killer is often driven to kill due to a sexual motivation.

A fourth subgroup of serial killers is known as a Thrill Killer. A thrill killer takes lives because they enjoy the experience of killing.

A fifth sort of serial killer is the Power Seeker Killer, a person who enjoys having total control over
the fate of their victim.

One of the last kinds of serial killers is the Gain Serial Killer. A gain killer is one who kills to gain money or items they believe to be valuable."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lEnuh4GDMPcJ:www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/psychologicalprofiles/killer.pdf+are+serial+killer+the+same+a+thrill+kil lers%3F&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShgxaKuiJwSCcDkG73LZzUKIDpbSiruHtk-sElBMptfW7q_PH0i2dkpaQdCBs7WCLzChmPCTq2Rn88FZYqXYu cTYr5qzBlwHC3dCAbOkmggJEfb3dyPwxyWNH2gFTNVlB44e9vF&sig=AHIEtbQ40lgQ2A0l93qNZRr63PTA_ezTGg


That quote from Damien is enough to send chills down my spine.

Compassionate Reader
01-11-2012, 11:48 AM
That quote from Damien is enough to send chills down my spine.

IMO, he was being sarcastic. Listen to the clip instead of just reading it and I think you'll see what I mean. (I have looked for a video clip of this exchange, but PL1 has been pulled from YouTube. I'll continue to look to see if I can find and post video of the "boogey man" remark.) As I have said many times, I've heard much worse from teenagers in parent-teacher conferences.

AngelontheRiver
01-11-2012, 07:32 PM
Ok. Here's the motive. Holcomb told investigators Damien told her that he had never killed anyone but wondered what it would feel like.

Cappuccino
01-11-2012, 07:41 PM
I've often wondered what it would feel like to kill someone too, but I'd never want to find out the hard way, still less drag my best friend and a casual acquaintance into a horrible triple child homicide.

Compassionate Reader
01-11-2012, 08:54 PM
Ok. Here's the motive. Holcomb told investigators Damien told her that he had never killed anyone but wondered what it would feel like.

First, as a former girlfriend, Deanna's stories could easily be just that - stories with very little substance.

Second, as Cappuccino said, thinking about it isn't doing it.

AngelontheRiver
01-11-2012, 10:17 PM
First, I have never thought about such an evil thing. I can't relate.

Second, her story may be true. You have no reason to impeach her.

There is no way that everyone involved lied except Damien. That defies logic. It makes me said all the innocent people who's characters have been assassinated for no good reason. The 3 were convicted, the 3 pled guilty.

AngelontheRiver
01-11-2012, 10:18 PM
Sad, not said. Lol, spellcheck from heck.

Cappuccino
01-11-2012, 10:28 PM
First, I have never thought about such an evil thing. I can't relate.

The fact that you can't relate is probably why you mistakenly see that statement as so evil. Basically, wondering what its like to do something is not the same thing as wanting to do it. I've often wondered what it feels like to be a bird and fly around the sky, but I don't particularly want to grow feathers and lay eggs.

This is the problem with taking someone's story about what someone else said as if it were evidence of anything. You have no idea of the original context in which it was said, or the intent or meaning of the person's words. This also highlights one of the problems referred in the link I posted earlier about teenagers being in a high risk category for false convictions. Its not just that teens are more likely to make false confessions, its also that many of the witnesses used against them are their peers, and teens are more likely to make false witness statements against each other too.

JBounds
01-11-2012, 10:50 PM
I've often wondered about the two teens who four days after the bodies were found went to California. They really weren't interrogated enough, imo. And when I say enough I don't mean to get some false confession.

I just mean the investigation was bout as much as when they investigated Mr. Bojangles. The Police Dept still had the beady eyes on the WM3 no matter what.

AngelontheRiver
01-11-2012, 10:51 PM
Then maybe they are more likely to lie in general. Damien lied constantly.

I have wondered what many things would be like. But not to take a life. I don't think that's normal.

Cappuccino
01-11-2012, 10:58 PM
Then maybe they are more likely to lie in general. Damien lied constantly.

Yes, they are more likely to lie in general, especially when being led by an adult authority figure, and often for reasons which make no sense to the adult world.

I have wondered what many things would be like. But not to take a life. I don't think that's normal.

Its perfectly normal. Wanting to do it isn't, but wondering about the extremes of human behaviour and various kinds of evil is perfectly normal.

Soulmagent
01-12-2012, 12:24 AM
I know I could kill to protect ,myself ,my children or someone else. I have never wondered what it would feel like . I just know I could kill for those reasons. I have however wondered how things lead into senceless murder. I guess it depends on how your thinking about such a subject, like plotting a nameless murder, v/s wondering if you could get anyway with murder, which would determine normal or abnormal.

I would think wondering what it "feels' like seems a bit more carnal due to the personal nature of what it means to "feel''.

Compassionate Reader
01-12-2012, 12:54 AM
Believe it or not, Damien is a very sensitive person. As a teenager, he would have wondered about a lot of things. I think you may be placing too much emphasis on the word "feel." That was just Damien's way of talking.

Many of us might have said, "I wonder what it's like to kill someone." Because he is sensitive, Damien inserted the word that seems to be a stumbling block for you. I don't see it as blood lust at all. As Cappuccino said, without actually hearing the statement, we have no way of knowing the manner in which it was said, the circumstances under which it was said and whether or not the statement was made sarcastically.

As to Deanna Holcomb, as I have said before, she is a former girlfriend. We don't know her motive for making this statement. She may have been angry about losing Damien. She may have been being sarcastic herself. She may have been looking for her fifteen minutes. Again, without audio, oftentimes people's words can be misinterpreted.

Cappuccino
01-12-2012, 01:16 AM
We don't know whether he did even say the word feel, so I wouldn't get hung up on it. Deanna was recounting a conversation she'd had about a year previously, who knows whether she remembered the exact words he used correctly, she's not Marvo the Memory Woman, after all.

I wonder what would have been the motive for beating Stevie Branch around the face, and not the other two victims? I gather attacking someone in the face is indicative of a personal connection or a specific personal hatred and anger at the victim.

LunaticFringe
01-12-2012, 09:24 AM
[QUOTE=Cappuccino;7507441]We don't know whether he did even say the word feel, so I wouldn't get hung up on it. Deanna was recounting a conversation she'd had about a year previously, who knows whether she remembered the exact words he used correctly, she's not Marvo the Memory Woman, after all.

I wonder what would have been the motive for beating Stevie Branch around the face, and not the other two victims? I gather attacking someone in the face is indicative of a personal connection or a specific personal hatred and anger at the victim.

I will always wonder why if Jason had a knife why weren't the boys all stabbed to death?Why beat them with fists and sticks if you can use a knife?

I personally don't think there was a knife involved unless it was Stevie's pocket knife used to cut on the shoelace.

LunaticFringe
01-12-2012, 09:26 AM
Sorry Capp...I don't know why my copied quote from you is all screwed up.

AngelontheRiver
01-12-2012, 11:23 AM
Believe it or not, Damien is a very sensitive person. As a teenager, he would have wondered about a lot of things. I think you may be placing too much emphasis on the word "feel." That was just Damien's way of talking.

Many of us might have said, "I wonder what it's like to kill someone." Because he is sensitive, Damien inserted the word that seems to be a stumbling block for you. I don't see it as blood lust at all. As Cappuccino said, without actually hearing the statement, we have no way of knowing the manner in which it was said, the circumstances under which it was said and whether or not the statement was made sarcastically.

As to Deanna Holcomb, as I have said before, she is a former girlfriend. We don't know her motive for making this statement. She may have been angry about losing Damien. She may have been being sarcastic herself. She may have been looking for her fifteen minutes. Again, without audio, oftentimes people's words can be misinterpreted.

Well, since you don't actually know him, you are just speculating. I think his book is full of lies. Obviously if he is a liar, nothing he says is proof of anything.

Cappuccino
01-12-2012, 11:31 AM
Well, since you don't actually know him, you are just speculating. I think his book is full of lies. Obviously if he is a liar, nothing he says is proof of anything.

Fair enough, Angel. In that case, when Damien said he wondered what it felt like to kill someone he was lying and that isn't proof that he was wondering anything of the sort. What he was really wondering was probably something mundane like "I wonder what's for dinner", (fatso that he is), but he thought "I wonder what it feels like to kill someone" would make him sound more interesting to his cat worshipping girlfriend.

Cappuccino
01-12-2012, 11:36 AM
I will always wonder why if Jason had a knife why weren't the boys all stabbed to death?Why beat them with fists and sticks if you can use a knife?

I personally don't think there was a knife involved unless it was Stevie's pocket knife used to cut on the shoelace.

Yes, I think Stevie's little pocket knife was most likely the knife used to cut the only adult sized shoe lace at the crime scene. The one used to bind Michael, the one that had Terry Hobbs hair underneath it.

AngelontheRiver
01-12-2012, 12:58 PM
Fair enough, Angel. In that case, when Damien said he wondered what it felt like to kill someone he was lying and that isn't proof that he was wondering anything of the sort. What he was really wondering was probably something mundane like "I wonder what's for dinner", (fatso that he is), but he thought "I wonder what it feels like to kill someone" would make him sound more interesting to his cat worshipping girlfriend.

That is hilarious. I could believe that one!

JBounds
01-12-2012, 01:29 PM
The way I see it about Damien saying all that stuff is not much different than most teens at that age. Even I said things at that age that later I'm not sure why I said them. Still just because he said it isn't proof of killing anyone.

AngelontheRiver
01-12-2012, 01:58 PM
I never said it is proof. Just goes to motive.

I'm a dog person, myself.

Tricia
01-12-2012, 02:02 PM
Hi Everyone,

We love differing viewpoints on Websleuths. That's why we exist. Differing viewpoints.

The fact is the WM3 were found guilty and they have not been exonerated by the state of Arkansas. They entered Alford pleas which allow them to claim their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.

Personally, there is no way I think they did it. They are innocent IMO and the state of Arkansas should be ashamed.

If the state felt they really did this crime then why did they make it part of the plea deal that the WM3 would not sue them. Why? Because they knew they would get slammed in court.

BUT the fact is they are still guilty in the eyes of the law.

If you happen to have a problem with this thread then I would suggest you don't participate. There are other threads on this forum that talk about their innocence.

Since in the eyes of the law they are still guilty this thread is absolutely acceptable as long as our Terms of Service are observed.

However, if you see a post that violates our terms of service or you think is inappropriate in any way, then please hit the alert button on that particular post. The alert button is the red triangle in the upper right hand corner of the post.

In general our TOS is this: Don't be rude, don't be a jerk, no name calling, and just be a decent human being.

Compassionate Reader
01-12-2012, 03:21 PM
The way I see it about Damien saying all that stuff is not much different than most teens at that age. Even I said things at that age that later I'm not sure why I said them. Still just because he said it isn't proof of killing anyone.

You are absolutely right! I saw it so many times in my 25 years' teaching that I've lost count. Teenagers are a different breed. They are going through physical changes in their bodies exacerbated by hormonal changes as well. Often they lash out and/or say mean and/or disgusting things - usually for attention. For Damien, this seemed to be a favorite coping mechanism (saying shocking things). The statement about killing someone, as I pointed out earlier, could easily be one of those coping statements. Without any proof, it is just the statement of a teenager.

twall
01-13-2012, 10:44 AM
IMO, he was being sarcastic. Listen to the clip instead of just reading it and I think you'll see what I mean. (I have looked for a video clip of this exchange, but PL1 has been pulled from YouTube. I'll continue to look to see if I can find and post video of the "boogey man" remark.) As I have said many times, I've heard much worse from teenagers in parent-teacher conferences.

PL1 has not been pulled from YT. Here is part 1. The other parts can be found on the same channel.

TheGodlessNeander's Channel - YouTube

EntreNous
01-14-2012, 07:37 PM
Can't sleep sometimes. And, yes, AngelontheRiver is a brave one. I often get my feelings very, very, extremely hurt.

Good night, late night friend!

Peace.

this is why i stopped posting in this forum. too many feelings being hurt. too many folks so deeply invested in either guilt or innocence for the WM3/FREE and so deeply affected by the brutality of 3 little boy's deaths.

i realize this is completely "off topic" but the fact remains that we are all human beings behind these computer monitors.

further, i've been around for quite a while and i can attest that this forum has not always leaned in favor of innocence. in actuality, and for a very long time, it leaned very heavily in the opposite direction.

that said, any well-trained investigator will attest that the crime scene does not fit the profile of a thrill killing.

Cappuccino
01-14-2012, 09:53 PM
I haven't been around all that long, but I have read back through all the old threads in this forum. So I can also attest that it has not always leaned in favour of innocence, in fact the flames were very hot in here for supporters of the wm3 up until relatively recently.

I didn't see any supporters playing the victim card or stomping off in a temper, even when people like, eg, Dirty Larry, were kicking them around the place with abuse. If you believe in a person's innocence you will stand your ground and argue your cause, no matter how unpopular it may be at the time.

AngelontheRiver
01-14-2012, 10:43 PM
I agree with some posters and disagree with others. However I respect all and do not ever want to hurt anyone's feelings. You are all good people to care so much.

EntreNous
01-14-2012, 11:04 PM
I agree with some posters and disagree with others. However I respect all and do not ever want to hurt anyone's feelings. You are all good people to care so much.

same here, angel. :grouphug:

Compassionate Reader
01-15-2012, 02:12 AM
I've said it before. I have a thick skin. I guess it's from years of teaching teenagers. However, I don't want to ever hurt anyone either. One of the things I really like about this site is the civility. We can (and do) disagree, but we do it like adults and not whiny children.

kline
01-15-2012, 05:12 AM
I believe they did it because A) Damien Echols is bat***** crazy and wanted, in his own words, to feel what it was like to kill somebody (as evidenced by the defence's 500) and B) Jason Baldwin is an evil person and Jessie Miskelley was just a drunk, bored follower who went along with it. JMO of course.
I think that pretty well sums it up.

AngelontheRiver
06-29-2012, 12:25 AM
I hope they have some tiny amount of humanity in them so they are haunted by what they did.

Soulmagent
06-29-2012, 02:10 AM
The crime was full of rage and no one has any idea on what the motive would be for the teens rage . Not only Damien but at least jason as well right?
so speculation on motive ..

What if the boys had witnessed something that made not only DE believe the boys would say something but that at least one other person was also worried about them spilling the beans?

What is the worst thing a little kid could witness two teenage boys doing that would make the teens angry if he threatend to tell and if they thought he had told his two best friends as well?


I dont think DE wanted to know what it was like either until he had a motive.

Compassionate Reader
06-29-2012, 12:52 PM
Many people believe that the little boys might have witnessed something, and that could have been the motive of TH instead of DE. For instance, suppose the boys witnessed TH making a drug deal. Or (and I hesitate to mention this) suppose that Stevie had begun to talk to his friends about the sexual abuse that his aunts have claimed he reported to them. It's even possible that TH wanted to involve Michael and Christopher in the sexual games.

As I believe that TH is the guilty party, I'm constantly looking for motives for him. DE, at least IMO, had no motive. The Satanic cult killing was bogus all along and, IIRC, when the briefs were filed for the evidentiary hearing, the State didn't revisit that motive. My guess is that they would have tried to use a "thrill kill" motive, but IMO the evidence doesn't support that motive. As has been said, this was a personal crime. The bodies were hidden, not displayed as is usually the case in a "thrill kill" scene.

Aura
07-01-2012, 05:53 PM
The thing I hate about this case are all the lies. Everyone involved with this case lied at some point. The over exaggerations were bad too. I was involved with this case many years, and became acquainted with one parent. The only thing that matters to me now, is justice for them 3 boys that lost their lives. I think the way Damien is acting now is just gross. I think he is milking his celebrity for all its worth. He is now doing tattoos, there is only one tattoo design he will do, and its a X, but to get it done, it is $200.00. For a small X. He is now against the movie Devils Knot because it shows him in not such a good light. The movie is still about their supposed innocence. I dont know how I feel about who did this. But I dont like Damien or the way he is acting now. And I think he is using the backs of 3 brutally murdered children to become famous. That is just MHO

Compassionate Reader
07-01-2012, 06:55 PM
The thing I hate about this case are all the lies. Everyone involved with this case lied at some point. The over exaggerations were bad too. I was involved with this case many years, and became acquainted with one parent. The only thing that matters to me now, is justice for them 3 boys that lost their lives. I think the way Damien is acting now is just gross. I think he is milking his celebrity for all its worth. He is now doing tattoos, there is only one tattoo design he will do, and its a X, but to get it done, it is $200.00. For a small X. He is now against the movie Devils Knot because it shows him in not such a good light. The movie is still about their supposed innocence. I dont know how I feel about who did this. But I dont like Damien or the way he is acting now. And I think he is using the backs of 3 brutally murdered children to become famous. That is just MHO

I, too, am in this for justice. However, justice must extend to all involved - the parents of the three murdered children as well as the three falsely-imprisoned men and their families. They all deserve relief.

From what I've read about the whole tattoo situation, until he is licensed, Damien can only tattoo "X's." When he is licensed, he will be able to tattoo more intricate designs. The fact that he can make money doing so is called entrepreneurship and is one of the elements of the American Dream. If anyone is entitled to a small part of the American Dream, IMO it is Damien Echols who lost over eighteen years of his life to a miscarriage of justice.

As to Devil's Knot the movie, I for one would like to wait until it has been released before opining about it. In truth, it hasn't even been shot yet! There is no way that anyone can know what it will portray and how it will portray the subjects. The script isn't even finalized at this point. Also, we must remember that it will be a work of fiction, and therefore unlike the documentaries that have been and will be released.

Aura
07-01-2012, 09:52 PM
To me, I believe the three little boys deserve justice first and foremost. Damien even said that he contributed to his arrest for being a smart ass with the police and messing with them. If the 3 that were arrested did not do this crime, then yes they deserve justice as well. Does anyone here know, without a doubt, for sure, who killed these boys? No. The only people that do for sure is the killer or killers and the 3 boys.

As for the tattoo stuff, he is using his name to make a buck off it. $200 for 2 lines is way out of price. To anyone who wants to pay that, that is their decision, to each their own, but I think he is using it to wrong means.

Tugela
07-01-2012, 10:57 PM
I'm interested in discussing theories of what actually motivated these three to commit the murders.

Nothing motivated them because they didn't.

Luckyswife
07-02-2012, 11:32 AM
I think the case should be re-opened and re-investigated. I guess we'll never really know because of the Alford plea. IMOO

Compassionate Reader
07-02-2012, 12:44 PM
I think the case should be re-opened and re-investigated. I guess we'll never really know because of the Alford plea. IMOO

IMHO, the main reason that we may never "know" to everyone's satisfaction the identity of the killer is the sloppy investigation and follow up by the wmpd. Personally, I am confident that I "know" the identity of the killer. However, I respect that everyone doesn't feel as I do.

I just wish that the defense team could/would release all of the evidence that they have to date. I'm confident that some of the unreleased evidence would point people in the right direction as to the identity of the killer. However, what the Alford Plea did do was to preclude the evidentiary hearing where the defense's evidence would have been presented - all of it.

AngelontheRiver
07-02-2012, 01:27 PM
What's stopping them?

Compassionate Reader
07-02-2012, 05:00 PM
What's stopping them?

Personally, I believe that the State is stopping the flow of information, not the defense. But that's MOO.

Aura
07-02-2012, 07:54 PM
With Pams coming up legal stuff with WMPD, they are hoping more can come out and the casae can be closed for the defense to then move on in their investigation.

AngelontheRiver
07-03-2012, 12:22 PM
In my opinion, the defense has nothing.

Compassionate Reader
07-03-2012, 09:58 PM
In my opinion, the defense has nothing.

Time will tell.

AngelontheRiver
07-03-2012, 10:06 PM
Time will tell.

I will be waiting and opining. :)

Compassionate Reader
07-03-2012, 10:24 PM
I will be waiting and opining. :)

As will I!

news247
07-08-2012, 08:55 PM
I, too, am in this for justice. However, justice must extend to all involved - the parents of the three murdered children as well as the three falsely-imprisoned men and their families. They all deserve relief.

From what I've read about the whole tattoo situation, until he is licensed, Damien can only tattoo "X's." When he is licensed, he will be able to tattoo more intricate designs. The fact that he can make money doing so is called entrepreneurship and is one of the elements of the American Dream. If anyone is entitled to a small part of the American Dream, IMO it is Damien Echols who lost over eighteen years of his life to a miscarriage of justice.

As to Devil's Knot the movie, I for one would like to wait until it has been released before opining about it. In truth, it hasn't even been shot yet! There is no way that anyone can know what it will portray and how it will portray the subjects. The script isn't even finalized at this point. Also, we must remember that it will be a work of fiction, and therefore unlike the documentaries that have been and will be released.


i agree with you about the devil's knot movie - that's exactly why it made me wonder why DE spoke of it the way he did on his twitter account.

Compassionate Reader
07-08-2012, 10:41 PM
i agree with you about the devil's knot movie - that's exactly why it made me wonder why DE spoke of it the way he did on his twitter account.

I don't twitter. Too many people's accounts are bogus. It's worse than Facebook!

SmoothOperator
07-09-2012, 01:09 AM
That quote from Damien is enough to send chills down my spine.
Despite what some others are of the opinion of i can attest to having watched and heard him say the words and IMO they are even more chilling than just reading the words of the "boogeyman" quote...jmo, tho and to each their own..

This case will always have the line drawn in the sand and sadly there's no hope of that ever being resolved imo..if the three were innocent there'd be hope one day that the "real killers" would be arrested and stand trial..but IMO the real killers have already been arrested, stood trial, were all found guilty and to this day remain guilty of the murder of Steve, Michael, Chris.. there will never be resolution and it'll remain with the "real killers" out there somewhere in the wild blue yonder with Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldmans"real killer" as well.

Of course jmo and nada damn thing more ;)

Compassionate Reader
07-09-2012, 04:45 PM
Despite what some others are of the opinion of i can attest to having watched and heard him say the words and IMO they are even more chilling than just reading the words of the "boogeyman" quote...jmo, tho and to each their own..

This case will always have the line drawn in the sand and sadly there's no hope of that ever being resolved imo..if the three were innocent there'd be hope one day that the "real killers" would be arrested and stand trial..but IMO the real killers have already been arrested, stood trial, were all found guilty and to this day remain guilty of the murder of Steve, Michael, Chris.. there will never be resolution and it'll remain with the "real killers" out there somewhere in the wild blue yonder with Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldmans"real killer" as well.

Of course jmo and nada damn thing more ;)

Unless you were present at the murders, it is impossible for you to know for sure that the three are guilty. As I'm sure you know, many innocent people plead guilty for a multitude of reasons. The three entered Alford Pleas because they didn't trust the State of Arkansas, which had unjustly imprisoned them for over eighteen years, to get it right at a new trial. IMO, that is totally understandable.

I'm hoping that the evidence showing the real killer will soon be released. Just as you are convinced of their guilt, I am convinced of their innocence. Of course, I can't be 100% sure as I wasn't present at the murders, either.

However, I have every reason for hope and every reason to believe that there is more to be revealed in this case - and I believe that what is yet to be revealed will convince all intelligent people of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie and the guilt of the real killer of those three precious children, Stevie, Michael and Christopher. May they rest in peace, knowing that we will not rest until their killer pays for his crime. I anxiously await that day.

Aura
07-10-2012, 07:04 PM
That Boogeyman comment was so stupid and arrogant of him. I couldnt believe when he said that at the end of PL1. No, it doesnt make him a murderer. Sure doesnt make him look good either though.

I wish whoever has all this "major" evidence against the stepfather in question would come out. I wanna know what is there to accuse this man with beside a hair that could belong to 1 in every 10,000 people living in Arkansas. Neither stepfather are great people. The one in question has got some bad things he has done to people before. Still doesnt make him a murderer. I wish the mom who was married to this Stepfather would decide once and for all what she is going to believe instead of going back and forth and getting people riled up. Or just keep quiet about what she thinks. And i REALLY wish they could figure this stupid thing out and get the real killer or killers behind bars.

news247
07-10-2012, 09:42 PM
I don't twitter. Too many people's accounts are bogus. It's worse than Facebook!


i firmly believe that it is DE's account - you should read it sometime; i think you would also agree that it's him.

ETA: there are 2 accounts - one is 'damien echols page' which i am NOT convinced it is him posting on it, and the other is simply, damien echols, which i believe to actually be his. IMO/

LunaticFringe
07-11-2012, 10:31 AM
i firmly believe that it is DE's account - you should read it sometime; i think you would also agree that it's him.

ETA: there are 2 accounts - one is 'damien echols page' which i am NOT convinced it is him posting on it, and the other is simply, damien echols, which i believe to actually be his. IMO/

I have no doubt that the one account is his and it's him doing the actually tweeting.

Compassionate Reader...you should check it out.You can keep up with what he is doing now in life.You do not have to have a twitter account to read it either.He posts pictures as well.

news247
07-11-2012, 11:21 AM
there is also a trailer of west memphis 3, and a couple of minutes of DE reading from his new book (while making the audio verson).

Compassionate Reader
07-11-2012, 04:32 PM
I'll try to look at it. That's all I can promise. Right now I've got several irons in the fire (not case related) and seem to have less time for the Internet. Hopefully, when everything is cleared up (next week, I hope), I'll have more time for that.

twall
07-15-2012, 12:28 AM
Despite what some others are of the opinion of i can attest to having watched and heard him say the words and IMO they are even more chilling than just reading the words of the "boogeyman" quote...jmo, tho and to each their own..

This case will always have the line drawn in the sand and sadly there's no hope of that ever being resolved imo..if the three were innocent there'd be hope one day that the "real killers" would be arrested and stand trial..but IMO the real killers have already been arrested, stood trial, were all found guilty and to this day remain guilty of the murder of Steve, Michael, Chris.. there will never be resolution and it'll remain with the "real killers" out there somewhere in the wild blue yonder with Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldmans"real killer" as well.

Of course jmo and nada damn thing more ;)

The "boogeyman" quote was taken out of context, sliced and diced by the producers. Here are Damien's thoughts leading up to that statement. It puts things in an entirely different perspective. JMO

http://video.vulture.com/video/Vulture-Exclusive-Paradise-Lo-2#c=W3LR0R1QNY942N7M&t=Vulture
Exclusive: 'Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory' - Lost Footage

gheckso
07-15-2012, 03:47 AM
^ Not many people would bother to find that themselves, it's easier to have an opinion than facts as it seems.

well done for steering people that seem to be uneducated and or ignorant.

Aura
07-15-2012, 04:08 PM
Wow, so sorry we are ignorant for thinking something about a comment. You have no idea how educated or uneducated people here are, so to make that uneducated and or ignorant comment was uncalled for.

We are allowed to think things for ourselves.

The link with the lost footage didnt have the comment of him thinking it would be 'cool cause then he will be known as the boogeyman, when kids go to sleep they will be looking under their beds for him'. It was his talking before hand, so it still puts the whole comment not in the right context either. You cant take back what he said. It is as plain as day on PL1.

Cappuccino
07-15-2012, 04:32 PM
Come on Aura, I think there's no doubt that PL1 was edited in various ways which didn't show any of the protaganists accurately. Showing the comments Damien made just before and after the boogeyman comment is relevant and does show the context.

The same complaint can be made about others in the film too - most horribly, Michael's family gave the film makers home video footage of their son, but all you see in PL1 is the awful crime scene footage of his corpse. While I respect Berlinger and Sinofsky for drawing attention to an important case, I don't like them for that.

Aura
07-15-2012, 08:18 PM
Oh I agree with you, I do not and did not like how in each PL, they had to show the crime scene photos, and the bodies of these children. That was horrible.

The context for the boogeyman comment, I can see how he was saying the stuff in the clip provided by Twall. But it didnt have the boogeyman comment in that video. But I dont see how the producers edited the film to make it seem like he said something that he didnt. It is plain, he says, 'I kinda like it, Ill be known as the West Memphis boogeyman for this.' I agree it couldve been edited to make it seem out of context... but I dont see how that comment couldve been something else before it.. Why would he say, 'I kinda like it' Do you think there couldve been something else he said after the 'it' that wasnt 'I kinda like it now I will be known as the boogeyman'?

Cappuccino
07-15-2012, 08:30 PM
Without seeing the unedited footage there's no way of knowing, but in general I would be skeptical of a clip from a movie. Especially when people on both sides of the debate have complained that the same movie misrepresented them.

news247
07-16-2012, 02:37 AM
I'll try to look at it. That's all I can promise. Right now I've got several irons in the fire (not case related) and seem to have less time for the Internet. Hopefully, when everything is cleared up (next week, I hope), I'll have more time for that.


i realize we are on opposite sides on this case - but, seriously, i really feel that you will enjoy DE's twitter account - not guilty or innocent or anything like that at all - just reading what he and lorri (sp?) are up to, comments from his book, several trailers (1 of the peter jackson movie/doc, and several of DE reading from his new book). given your interest in the case (i have one as well!), i just thought you might enjoy it.

claudicici
07-16-2012, 03:08 AM
whether it is the real Damien or not I follow and love his twitter feed.he always stayed true to himself.And there is NO way,No way in a million years I could imagine someone who loves poetry,art,magick to be involved in something evil.it takes a savage to do evil.
"What do I want to grow? Stability,and continued healing. What do I want to banish? Trauma."

gheckso
07-16-2012, 04:49 AM
Well this is just a guess but maybe he was "kinda liking the idea of being remembered" not so much the idea of being the "boogeyman". Obviously being remembered for a horrible crime is not something to be admired.
Maybe he would still be thinking all this would be over soon and that it's all just a big mistake, so perhaps looking lightly on a (in hindsight) really bad situation.
Just trying to think like a 16 year old again...

Aura
07-16-2012, 01:09 PM
Well this is just a guess but maybe he was "kinda liking the idea of being remembered" not so much the idea of being the "boogeyman". Obviously being remembered for a horrible crime is not something to be admired.

I do think Damien said the comment because he liked the idea of being remembered. He says before that comment he kinda likes it cause he will be remembered. Damien even said a few years later that was a stupid comment he made when he was still mad. I do not think the comment made him a murderer, just arrogant and stupid. What I dont like is some people have their opinions about this case, and they think that theirs is the right one, and everyone else is just ignorant or stupid.

LunaticFringe
07-16-2012, 02:07 PM
whether it is the real Damien or not I follow and love his twitter feed.he always stayed true to himself.And there is NO way,No way in a million years I could imagine someone who loves poetry,art,magick to be involved in something evil.it takes a savage to do evil.
"What do I want to grow? Stability,and continued healing. What do I want to banish? Trauma."

I have no doubt it is him.The one thing we have in common besides music is the hatred of summer.I chuckled when he tweeted that.

Pensfan
07-17-2012, 04:14 PM
whether it is the real Damien or not I follow and love his twitter feed.he always stayed true to himself.And there is NO way,No way in a million years I could imagine someone who loves poetry,art,magick to be involved in something evil.it takes a savage to do evil.
"What do I want to grow? Stability,and continued healing. What do I want to banish? Trauma."
BBM
Charles Manson loves music, writing lyrics (poetry), and art,

Before Charles Manson became one of America's most famous murderers, he was a singer-songwriter in Los Angeles. Some of his songs were released commercially. Various musicians, including Guns N' Roses, White Zombie and Marilyn Manson, have recorded them.

Here are some of Charlie's paintings:
http://www.google.com/search?q=charles+manson+art&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=esYFUIzBCarY6wHS_ej3CA&ved=0CFYQsAQ&biw=1356&bih=550

AngelontheRiver
07-17-2012, 07:43 PM
Charlie didn't even actually kill anyone. Maybe Depp & Co. will take on his cause next. Free pass for anyone who is all artsy and emo.

Pensfan
07-19-2012, 12:38 AM
Charlie didn't even actually kill anyone. Maybe Depp & Co. will take on his cause next. Free pass for anyone who is all artsy and emo.
Damien states that he didn't actually kill anyone either. They should correspond with each other. Maybe they already do?

Peepers
07-19-2012, 12:45 PM
The title of the thread "why did the WM3 do it?"
If we cant find a reason does that mean they didnt do it?

Sometimes there is no reason, just evil deeds.

AngelontheRiver
07-19-2012, 01:31 PM
I think they did it because they were bullies and were drunk and got carried away. They were all violent. Misskelly was no innocent. He had a history of violence and substance abuse. He was experienced in being in legal trouble and was street smart to an extent. The motive is no mystery.

Aura
07-19-2012, 01:42 PM
Damien's 500 was an eye opener read. I agree with some that it does not make him a murderer. But he sure wasnt a saint either. I think some of it was teenager angst, but some of it was down right scary. Him wanting to eat the faces off his parents. His mom will say now that never happened, but if you look in the notes, she states she was scared for herself and her kids with him in the house. The skulls of animals doesnt bother me as much. I dont like it, and think its pretty gross, but I know some boys in their younger years get in to some crazy crap. LOL But what does bother me, is him saying he wanted to sacrifice a baby cause the blood would make him a God. Nope still doesnt make him a murderer, but doesnt make him sane either. I guess he couldve made this stuff up to shock the hospital people.. I think that would be pretty stupid too. Just cause I dont like Damien and I think he has got some major problems, doesnt mean he murdered the boys. But I do want to know for sure who did this.

gheckso
07-19-2012, 10:40 PM
I've read through some of this and it appears to explain a little of what may have occurred in reference to the "baby killing", not saying this is true but it suggests that it was a rumor and denied by Damien at that time.

Baby Sacrifice Rumors
http://wm3truth.com/damien-echols-profile/

I will finish reading when I can, although this may be debunked before then ;p

Pensfan
07-19-2012, 11:18 PM
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - My view has done a complete 180

Compassionate Reader
07-21-2012, 05:48 PM
Damien's 500 was an eye opener read. I agree with some that it does not make him a murderer. But he sure wasnt a saint either. I think some of it was teenager angst, but some of it was down right scary. Him wanting to eat the faces off his parents. His mom will say now that never happened, but if you look in the notes, she states she was scared for herself and her kids with him in the house. The skulls of animals doesnt bother me as much. I dont like it, and think its pretty gross, but I know some boys in their younger years get in to some crazy crap. LOL But what does bother me, is him saying he wanted to sacrifice a baby cause the blood would make him a God. Nope still doesnt make him a murderer, but doesnt make him sane either. I guess he couldve made this stuff up to shock the hospital people.. I think that would be pretty stupid too. Just cause I dont like Damien and I think he has got some major problems, doesnt mean he murdered the boys. But I do want to know for sure who did this.

If there is one thing I learned in my 25 years of teaching teenagers, it's that very few of them are saints! I've heard teens say things just as bad as the "eat his face off" comment in parent/teacher conferences. Many people don't realize just how graphic some teens can be. I'm very glad that my teenaged antics aren't on display for everyone to see because I was no saint, either!

Yes, there are some very disturbing things in Exhibit 500. However, I wonder how much was exaggerated in an effort at mitigating Damien's punishment or in an effort to get Damien the disability status that some of the information was intended to do. I know, again through my teaching experience, that, on occasion, symptoms are exaggerated for that purpose.

Remember, Exhibit 500 was introduced by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial. It was not evidence at the trial and therefore played no part in Damien's conviction. Sometimes I think people forget that fact.

Aura
07-22-2012, 04:00 PM
No I did not forget that the 500 was not evidence in the trial. I also put that I did not think he was a murderer for it. It is a look at what his teenage years were like. I have worked in the mental health field for many years, and have also dealt with these kinds of teenagers. I was no saint either. But I didnt take things this out of hand either. I dont know how it is in different states, just here in Arizona, but I have never seen a medical professional over exaggerate claims to get the person disability. If anything, here, they keep it simple in order to make it a major thing to get on disability. The Social Security here want and make you see their own docs to be determined if you are really that mentally disabled.

I also dont think that just because you or anyone else was that crazy with what they said as a teenager, means you know what was going on in the mind of Damien at this time. I sure as hell dont. He couldve made things more crazier then what they really were. Still doesnt make him look any better in the 500.

Compassionate Reader
07-22-2012, 10:17 PM
I'm not enamored with Damien or what he said. I was simply pointing out that I have heard worse from my students in parent/teacher conferences. None of those students (to my knowledge) ever killed anyone.

Do I think Damien had problems as a teenager? Yes, I do. I also believe that he was given incorrect medication which could account for some of his actions during the trial.

Do I think that some of the information in Exhibit 500 is "scary" to use your word? Yes, some of it is scary. However, as you pointed out, nothing in Exhibit 500 makes Damien guilty of the murders of those three little boys.

What usually upsets me whenever Exhibit 500 is discussed is the insistence of so many people that Damien's mental health issues is evidence that he was capable of murdering the little boys when it wasn't introduced in the trial but only in the penalty phase and then by the defense. Further, no matter how much information is presented to imply that someone is capable of murder, in order to be found guilty of murder, generally there needs to be means, motive and opportunity - and some evidence of such. IMO, in this case, that hasn't been proven.

Damien had mental health issues as a teenager (he may still have them), but that doesn't prove he is a murderer. IMO, he had an alibi for the night. Also, I don't believe Jessie's yarns as they don't match the forensics of the case. So, IMO, it is counterproductive and misleading to continue to discuss Damien's mental health issues especially since they weren't introduced in the trial as evidence of his guilt.

ETA: As to mental health professionals not lying in order to "help" someone get SSDI, maybe it doesn't happen in Arizona, but it did where I taught (TX). I know because the kids would often brag about how the social worker or psychologist "helped" them out. IMO, no profession, including my own, is without its "bad apples."

hello people
02-26-2013, 09:17 PM
Nothing motivated them because they didn't.

Yes they did. They are guilty as sin.

Cappuccino
03-01-2013, 03:53 AM
Yes they did. They are guilty as sin.

Coming from a person that doesn't even know the basic crime scene details, that is rubbish. You have to ask how deep the drainage ditch was, and what were the initial crime scene photos? And you pretend to know anything about guilt or innocence?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Cazzie
03-03-2013, 08:33 PM
Re: the topic. They didn't. Ask Terry. JMO.

hello people
03-04-2013, 06:50 PM
Coming from a person that doesn't even know the basic crime scene details, that is rubbish. You have to ask how deep the drainage ditch was, and what were the initial crime scene photos? And you pretend to know anything about guilt or innocence?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's 50/50

There's great cud for either side to chew on

Nova
03-05-2013, 08:15 AM
None of us can guess what motivated this crime. That's why prosecutors are never required to prove a motive. Since there is no physical evidence to follow, they had to believe the motive was satanism as that's what they were being told and there was proof at least from Damien. We all know others can be coerced into a crime.

Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go.

Seems thrill kill might be the only motive left. I don't think it was planned, it was spur of the moment but I beleive it's something Damien fantasized about.

There is no evidence that Satanists exist, much less kill babies.

Just as there is no evidence that Jason Baldwin is "evil" or that Jason and Damian ever let Jessie Misskelley "hang out" with them.

This must be the "fan fiction" thread.

hello people
03-05-2013, 02:06 PM
Well like everything with this case...it's one big grey area

HastingsChi
03-09-2013, 02:31 AM
Well like everything with this case...it's one big grey area

If one closely examines all of the evidence (including Dennis Riordan's findings and known evidence the defense was preparing to use if a retrial was granted), examines the local media coverage from the arrests through the trials and looks at the facts that came out about witnesses and others directly involved in the initial trials; then I think it is crystal clear that it is not a grey area..

hello people
03-09-2013, 05:41 AM
Well the evidence points squarely at the convicted

HastingsChi
03-09-2013, 07:57 AM
Well the evidence points squarely at the convicted

Noting that I have not shared my position, I'm curious to understand what specifically led you to arrive at your position?

hello people
03-11-2013, 01:52 AM
http://callahan.8k.com/

CHERIE.T
03-11-2013, 05:21 AM
Yes they did. They are guilty as sin.

No, no they are not guilty. There is no forensic or physical proof.

kyleb
03-11-2013, 05:57 AM
If determining guilt required physical proof, forensic or otherwise, all but the dumbest of criminals would walk free.

Compassionate Reader
03-27-2013, 01:15 AM
If determining guilt required physical proof, forensic or otherwise, all but the dumbest of criminals would walk free.

You do realize that two chief prosecution witnesses (Carson and Hutcheson) have recanted, right? The only evidence against the WM3 presented at trial was Jessie's hare-brained, coerced story, the 'tweens' hearsay, fiber evidence (which has since been disproved), Vicki Hutcheson's testimony about the esbat (which she has since recanted) and Michael Carson's testimony about Jason "confessing" to him (which he has since recanted. Maybe there can't always be forensic evidence, but there must be some evidence. Where is it?

kyleb
03-27-2013, 03:17 AM
There was more evidence presented at trial than what you mention, and more evidence which has come out since then through document releases and hearings. Before getting into any of that though, where is evidence that any of Misskelley's many confessions were coerced, or anything to disprove the fiber evidence?

As for Carson and Hutcheson, I first heard of them through West of Memphis, so I never had time to actually consider their testimony before I heard the recantations. I doubt I ever would have put any stock in what they said anyway though, as neither seem like individuals of notable character, which leaves me to consider their recantations just as dubious as their previous claims.

Compassionate Reader
03-27-2013, 04:59 PM
If you have seen West of Memphis, then you also heard Joyce Cureton's statement. From what I've been told, that is a powerful statement, indeed. She points to some pretty interesting corruption within the justice system in Arkansas, at least at the time of the murders. What reason is there to disbelieve her statement? Remember, she was told not to be available for the trials.

The fibers were retested and the findings indicated that they did not come from the garments collected from the defendants' homes (http://www.kait8.com/link/583753/pdf-forensic-scientists-claim-wm3-fiber-evidence-is-wrong) So, the fibers are useless as a "proof" of guilt for the wrongfully-convicted men.

I've read the trial transcripts on Callahan's and don't recall any proof of guilt. Remember, at an initial trial, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I know that "two juries found them guilty" but that doesn't make it true. That's why we have an appeals process in this country. When you consider that the E/B jury was most probably tainted by the jury foreman and the Misskelley jury heard a false confession that they believed (plus they may have been influenced by a bit of judicial misconduct), I simply put no store in the jury verdicts.

The 'tweens are almost as unbelievable as Michael Carson and Jessie Misskelley! They claimed to have overheard Damien "confess." Remember, they were eavesdropping. They were quite young and, IMO, probably wouldn't have recognized sarcasm if it reached up and bit them on the butt. If Damien "confessed," and I don't concede that he did, it was said sarcastically, not seriously.

Now there is evidence just as strong as the 'tweens' statements against TH - the three witnesses (especially Witness #3) who were friends of Michael Hobbs, Jr. who were interviewed in West of Memphis Unlike the 'tweens who supposedly overheard Damien's "confession" at the softball game, these three witnesses were older and have passed polygraph tests on their sworn statements.

So, please tell me what "proof" of guilt for Damien, Jason and Jessie remains to be refuted.

kyleb
03-27-2013, 05:40 PM
Before responding to your post most recent post, I'm still curious regarding the assertion in your previous post that Misskelley was coerced: do you have any actual evidence to support that claim?

Compassionate Reader
03-28-2013, 12:09 AM
I answered that question in another thread. Basically, look at the "corrected" statement of June 3, 1993. The coercion (you called it "coaching") was evident. It may be legal for police interrogators to use this tactic, but IMO it's unethical, especially on an mentally-challenged suspect. I'm sure you disagree, but, as JMB often says, everyone's entitled to be wrong.

kyleb
03-28-2013, 12:55 AM
I asked in this thread before you answered in the other thread. However, in response to your reply here: please check however many dictionaries it takes for you to come to terms with the fact that you are using the term coercion wrong. Of course you are entitled to keep using it wrong, but you can't rightly expect anyone to take you seriously as long as you do fail to respect such simple facts.

Cappuccino
03-28-2013, 01:05 AM
There was more evidence presented at trial than what you mention, and more evidence which has come out since then through document releases and hearings.

Really? What evidence was presented at trial that we don't know about, and what evidence has come to light since?

Before getting into any of that though, where is evidence that any of Misskelley's many confessions were coerced, or anything to disprove the fiber evidence?

The fibre evidence has been demolished.

As for Carson and Hutcheson, I first heard of them through West of Memphis, so I never had time to actually consider their testimony before I heard the recantations. I doubt I ever would have put any stock in what they said anyway though, as neither seem like individuals of notable character, which leaves me to consider their recantations just as dubious as their previous claims.

Yes...and yet their previous claims were an integral part of both juries decision to convict. Unlike you, those juries DID have time to actually consider their testimony, and unlike you they were misled enough to put stock in them.

That's the kind of thing you won't read on the "truth" site.

kyleb
03-28-2013, 01:31 AM
The problem is that you're not refuting the evidence presented at WM3 Truth, you just keep refusing to acknowledge it. IF for example you could actually prove your claim that "The fibre evidence has been demolished", I'd be happy to agree. However, I get the impression that you don't comprehend how one might even go about proving such a thing, do you?

Cappuccino
03-28-2013, 02:59 AM
Kyleb - what was the most recent evidence you heard of about the fibres from the crime scene?

Cappuccino
03-28-2013, 03:01 AM
And please answer my other questions too - what evidence was presented at trial that we haven't mentioned, and what evidence has come to light since?

kyleb
03-28-2013, 10:22 AM
I want to stick to the claims of coercion reguarding Misskelley's confessions for the time being. There's no point in moving on to other evidence if each piece of evidence is simply going to be hand-waved away with wholly unsubstantiated arguments.

Compassionate Reader
03-28-2013, 11:28 PM
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!! I had a long post prepared that got eaten by the Internet gods. I'll try again.

Coercion or "coaching," whatever you want to call it, Jessie was told what to say or was led into saying what they wanted to hear, if you prefer it that way. Much of what Jessie said didn't match the forensics of the case. When Jessie's statement was taken to Judge Pal Rainey, he refused to issue arrest warrants, citing the inconsistencies in Jessie's statement. So, they went back and got a "clarification" statement.

From Jessie's first statement:

"RIDGE: Okay, Jessie, let's go straight to that date, 05/05/93, Wednesday, early in the morning. You received a phone call is that correct?
JESSIE: Yes, I did
RIDGE: And who made that phone call?
JESSIE: Jason Baldwin
RIDGE: Alright, what occurred, what did he talk about?
JESSIE: He called me and asked me if I could go to West Memphis with him and I told him, no, I had to work and stuff. He told me that he had to go to West Memphis so, him and Damian with and then I went with them.
RIDGE: Alright, when?
JESSIE: Wednesday
RIDGE: Alright, when did you go with them?
JESSIE: That morning
RIDGE: 9 o'clock in the morning?
JESSIE: Yes, I did. I went with them"

Now, we know that the little boys and Jason Baldwin were in school on May 5, 1993 at 9:00 am. So, this has to be fixed. Gitchell tries to fix it in this exchange (with Ridge chiming in):


"GITCHELL: Now, did you say that the boys skipped school that day, these little boys did?
JESSIE: Yes, they were going to catch, they were going somewhere and like I said, Damian and nem left before I did, I told them that I would meet them there and stuff, and it was early in the morning and so, they went ahead and met me, they went on up there and then I come up later on behind them.
GITCHELL: What time did you get there?
JESSIE: I got there about 9
GITCHELL: In the morning?
JESSIE: Yes
GITCHELL: Wednesday morning?
JESSIE: Yes
GITCHELL: And
RIDGE: What time is it right now?
JESSIE: Right now?
RIDGE: Yeah, you don't know what time it is?
GITCHELL: Do you not wear a watch?
JESSIE: It's at home
RIDGE: So
JESSIE: My dad woke me up this
RIDGE: so, your time period may not be exactly right in what you're saying?
JESSIE: Right
RIDGE: It was like earlier in the day, but you don't know exactly what time, okay,
cause I've gotten some real confusion with the times that you're telling me, but now, this 9 o'clock in the evening call that you got, explain that to me.
JESSIE: Well after, all of this stuff happened that night, that they done it, I went home about noon, then they called me at 9 o'clock that night, they called me.
RIDGE: And what did they tell you on the telephone?
JESSIE: They asked me how come I left so early and stuff, and I told them that I couldn't stay there and watch that stuff no more, so I had to do something to get out of there."

Here Gitchell and Ridge are trying desperately to get Jessie to change the time frame. Gitchell begins by emphasizing that the little boys had to have skipped school (which they didn't) for Jessie's story to be true. In the first part in bold, Ridge is "coaching" Jessie into agreeing that his time frame might not be right, which Gitchell hopes will cover the fact that what Jessie is saying is impossible. I don't care how low your IQ is, you know the difference between 9 am and early evening. Then, Ridge is subtly suggesting that the 9 am is really 9 pm with the second part in bold. Jessie doesn't pick up on the clues and still insists that the crime happened during the day and that he went home at noon.

From the "clarification" statement:

"Gitchell: Jessie, uh, when when you got with the boys and with Jason Baldwin when you three were in the woods and then little boys come up, about what time was it? When the boys come up to the woods?
Jessie: I would say it was about 5 or so 5 or 6.
Gitchell: Know, did you have your watch on at the time?
Jessie: Huh uh (no)
Gitchell: You didn't have your watch on?
Jessie: Huh uh (no)
Gitchell: Uh, alright you told me earlier around 7 or 8, which time is it?
Jessie: It was 7 or 8.
Gitchell: Are you
Jessie: It was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, it
Jessie: I remember it was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, well that clears it up. I didn't know, that's what I was wondering, was it getting dark or what.
Jessie: We got up there at 6:00 and the boys come up and it was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, so you and Jason and Baldwin uh, Damien you all got there right at 6.
Jessie: About 6 yeah"

Unfortunately, we don't know how Gitchell got Jessie to change his original time from noon to 6 pm or 7pm or 8 pm. That part wasn't recorded. However, it is obvious that some sort of conversation occurred since this is vastly different from Jessie's original statement. What Jessie has said since then is that they "told [him] what to say." I call that coercion. You can call it "coaching" all you want, but your saying the moon is made of green cheese doesn't make it so, does it?

This time discrepancy is only one example of errors in Jessie's original statement and how, during the "clarification" statement, the interrogators coerced Jessie to say what they wanted to hear. So, Jessie's statement was not only coerced, but it is a false confession.

kyleb
03-29-2013, 12:27 AM
Coercion or "coaching," whatever you want to call it
It's not a matter of what I want to call things, It's a matter of the definition of terms, and the evidence presented of doesn't accord with the meaning of coercion, as I explained previously in this thread. Of course I'm not insistent that you call what you are referring to coaching, there's plenty of other ways to describe it and I won't contest any accurate description. However, calling it coercion is simply false; can you please acknowledge that fact?

On a side note, my condolences on the lost post, I've been there more than a few times myself. I've learned to hit ctrl+a and ctrl+c to select and copy a post before submitting, then if something goes wrong you can ctrl+v to paste it into a new reply window or notepad. Granted, I still forget to do so on occasion, but it's saved me a lot of headaches over the years.

krimekat
03-29-2013, 06:39 PM
I don't know why WM3 did it -- IMHO it has always been WM4! Jealousy, boredom, drugs, and just plain dumb!

Terry Hobbs & his companions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/pam-hicks-west-memphis-three-suspects_n_2980142.html)

Pensfan
03-29-2013, 11:05 PM
I know why Damien Echols did it. HE'S CRAZY!
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html
IMO, the other two were/are followers also known as sheep.

Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse

kyleb
03-30-2013, 12:16 PM
Well assuming Misskelley was telling the truth regarding who mutilated Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, that pegs Baldwin as quite crazy in his own right, just not overtly so to anywhere near the extent which earned Echols his extensively documented mental heath history.

On a side note, while I find the wild finger pointing at Terry Hobbs as revolting as that which was previously directed at Mark Byers, at least I can take solace in seeing so many supporters of the convicted aren't buying into the defense's completely unsubstantiated claims of animal predation and no knifes.

LisaB
04-01-2013, 03:53 PM
Any explanation for their actions wouldn't be very rational because Damien was not rational. He was nuts.

And yet, the stated purpose of this thread is to provide an explanation.

LisaB
04-01-2013, 03:55 PM
I think that it is entirely within forum rules to start a thread about something and expect it to be kept on topic. The topic of this one is Why did the WM3 do it?~SNIP~

It might have been easier to get people to stick to the desired topic by asking "Why would the WM3 have done it?"

LisaB
04-01-2013, 03:58 PM
He still has mental problems. That is something that never goes away. He was institutionalized several times before he murdered the children.

It is documented that he was homicidal and dangerous to others.

I'm sure that his wife, Lorri has her handsful. She probably feels as though she is like his mother instead of his wife.

Yeah, but as a consolation prize, she has Johnny Depp coming around to hang out!

LisaB
04-01-2013, 04:29 PM
http://wreg.com/2013/03/27/new-details-in-new-affidavits-about-west-memphis-murders/

iluvmua
04-01-2013, 10:30 PM
http://wreg.com/2013/03/27/new-details-in-new-affidavits-about-west-memphis-murders/

I do not believe this for one second.

It does not make a lick of sense.

Buddy Lucas and the Hollingsworth guy were look at years ago when this first started and now all of a sudden they are the new suspects along with TH's friend Mr. Jacolby????

Not buying at all what they are selling

Compassionate Reader
04-10-2013, 12:19 AM
This information is all still very new. Although the affidavits might not be totally accurate, I'm sure that there is at least some truth in them. Let's see what else comes out before we totally discount them.

Mrs G Norris
04-18-2013, 03:34 PM
I do not believe this for one second.

It does not make a lick of sense.

Buddy Lucas and the Hollingsworth guy were look at years ago when this first started and now all of a sudden they are the new suspects along with TH's friend Mr. Jacolby????

Not buying at all what they are selling

OH that's just plain strange, although I can't help but wonder about motive here, is someone looking for a little financial benefit from the money raised by Lorri? Anyway, I don't believe it for a second, he's just hoping WM3Org will buy him a car or help him out with his electricity bill or something ..

raynjuls
05-01-2013, 03:34 PM
It might have been easier to get people to stick to the desired topic by asking "Why would the WM3 have done it?"

My two cents are as follows:

This was a crime of


Opportunity
Savage curiosity
group dynamic
bravao


Damien, ever the ring leader, saw an opportunity to play out some of his twisted religious / cultist fantasies and took it. Many younger sociopathic killers describe "wanting to know what its like to kill someone". Additionally, among his both chronologically and intellectually younger companions, he wanted to demonstrate what a badass he really was. Once things started, someone realized that they couldn't let the boys go or they were toast, so they did everything they could to hide them.

Kids (particularly bored kids) do stupid crap, often without a thought to the ultimate consequence. It is rarely this vicious and twisted, but it happens.

@ 16, a friend and I "stole" a freight train. We were both bright and would eventually both become engineers (not train engineers however). We were so enthused at the prospect of getting the thing moving, that we didn't consider what would happen if we were caught. Fortunately, we were luckier and smarter than these three, and no one ever really knew who "moved" the train about 25 miles (though my friend's Dad certainly had some strong suspicions).

Nova
05-03-2013, 06:55 AM
^^^^^ So "Boys will be boys"? Is that what passes for a theory of the crime these days?

ceecee30
05-03-2013, 08:12 AM
I've often wondered what it would feel like to kill someone too, but I'd never want to find out the hard way, still less drag my best friend and a casual acquaintance into a horrible triple child homicide.

I know this goes back in the posts a bit... But hey

My niece (partners side) told me when I was pregnant that she wanted to cut that baby outta me and kill it..

Now she suffers from ADHD and she's 8 now (6 at the time she said this)

Thing is she said something extremely horrible to me, am I worried about my child alone with her yes... But 2 years on from her wanting to cut the baby out an kill it.. Both me and my son are alive...

Saying and doing are two completely different things IMO..

:)

mattfz
05-03-2013, 08:45 AM
Well assuming Misskelley was telling the truth regarding who mutilated Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, that pegs Baldwin as quite crazy in his own right, just not overtly so to anywhere near the extent which earned Echols his extensively documented mental heath history.

On a side note, while I find the wild finger pointing at Terry Hobbs as revolting as that which was previously directed at Mark Byers, at least I can take solace in seeing so many supporters of the convicted aren't buying into the defense's completely unsubstantiated claims of animal predation and no knifes.

The claims aren't unsubstantiated-- they are backed by the professional opinions of 6 or 7 independent, well-known, published certified medical examiners. And they happen to all agree that it was animal predation. Put that against one opinion by the "medical examiner" of Crittenden County, Arkansas, who wasn't able to earn his certification. Oh, and throw in there that Arkansas has a strange law that makes a medical examiner an arm of the prosecution, who answers to the government.

Now.... If you are a juror, you can weigh the expertise of the expert witnesses' testimony to determine who is most credible. It seems fairly obvious who is the most credible :banghead:

kyleb
05-03-2013, 11:16 AM
I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

ceecee30
05-03-2013, 05:11 PM
I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

Wouldn't that make the medical examiners opinion unsubstantiated??

Because he was only using his opinion??

Personally if I was a juror I'd be inclined to back the 6-7 experts making the same "unsubstantiated claims" than one medical examiner doing exactly the same.

reedus23
05-03-2013, 05:58 PM
I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

kyle, I'm curious to know what evidence or facts causes you to give credence to the medical examiner's opinion?

mattfz
05-04-2013, 09:12 AM
I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

Use some logic and think about it. The murders were extremely violent, with at least some evidence that one of the little boys was raped anally, tied by their hands and feet, and chucked into a ditch to drown. But during that, the killer/killers took time to tap them on their bodies and scratch them with the serrated edge of the knife. Oh, and their wasn't evidence of any stabs or cuts with the knife, just scrapes like Fogelman demonstrated on that damn grapefruit. It. Simply. Does. Not. Fit.

raynjuls
05-04-2013, 11:44 AM
^^^^^ So "Boys will be boys"? Is that what passes for a theory of the crime these days?
Not really what I said... Echols clearly had mental issues, and wanted to act on his fantasies / beliefs... the other two probably just followed his lead... again without much thought to what would happen after. Sorry, but 'theory of the crime' need not be overly complex particularly in a case as senseless and vicious as this...

terekaugelt
05-05-2013, 02:13 PM
I am too busy to watch West of Memphis once more today (will do so tomorrow) but the essential logic is this: Peretti presented a forensic pathology "Bible" textbook as evidence[ at court (there is a scene where he actually hands it to the court to be included in evidence) and so Jackson and Co went straight to the author of that textbook. Who said that the description of the data was totally OK but the interpretation of the data was absolutely wrong. And also said most of the wounds, particularly the ones that probably affected the jury the most (he use the term "warped their judgement") when presented as torture wounds were actually the result of post-mortem animal predation. He had no doubts about it - and he was the authority figure that Peretti used to convince the jury of his interpretation.
I'll try to find time to watch the film again tomorrow and give all the exact names and quotes. But in the essentials I am 100 per cent correct.

Oh, and BTW, nobody, and really mean nobody has ever claimed that all the wounds were caused by animal predation. The poor boys did not die of animal predation, nobody has ever made this preposterous claim - this is just a typical straw man. The main cause was trauma caused by a blunt instrument (interestingly to the same area in the case of all three boys) and ultimately drowning.
But the way, as presented by Peretti to the juries was that all of the wounds were very much pre-mortem, i.e. occurred when the boys were still very much alive, that the injuries to one of the boy's penis were due to sexually deviant and extremely bloodthirsty behaviour of the attackers (Jason, of all persons, if one believes Jessie's "confessions"!). This certainly "warped the jurors' judgement".
I'll give the exact names and quotes tomorrow.

kyleb
05-05-2013, 06:31 PM
Wouldn't that make the medical examiners opinion unsubstantiated??
Well Peretti suggested the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead were from a belt buckle, and like with the claims of human bite marks and animal predation, of I've yet to see a belt buckle which is consistent with those wounds either. Absent substantiation of any of those alternative claims, I'm left to figure those wounds came from a Special Forces Survival II knife, most likely the one found behind Baldwin's home.

Personally if I was a juror I'd be inclined to back the 6-7 experts making the same "unsubstantiated claims" than one medical examiner doing exactly the same.
Peretti presented autopsy photos of specific wounds along with the survival knife itself to substantiate their claims of consistency, so if you were a juror you'd have had a chance to study them and check the measurements for yourself just as Fogleman asked the jury to do. What inclines you to ignore such facts, and what inclines you away from acknowledging the consistency between the survival knife and the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which I demonstrated in this thread?

kyle, I'm curious to know what evidence or facts causes you to give credence to the medical examiner's opinion?
I don't give credence to opinions. Any chance you can explain how you imagined otherwise?

Echols clearly had mental issues, and wanted to act on his fantasies / beliefs... the other two probably just followed his lead... again without much thought to what would happen after.
Assuming Misskelley was honest about who was responsible for the mutilation of Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, Baldwin arguably had worse mental issues than Echols, just not overtly so like Echols. Perhaps the intent wasn't to murder at the start but Baldwin brought things past the point of no return with the degloving, at which point Christopher Byers was bound to die and Stevie Branch and Michel Moore were witnesses which were sure to tell had they lived.

ceecee30
05-05-2013, 06:47 PM
Kyle I will reply to you shortly...

MODS - is acceptable to post the photos of the young boys on here? They're very graphic so wanted to check first

ceecee30
05-05-2013, 07:04 PM
Well Peretti suggested the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead were from a belt buckle, and like with the claims of human bite marks and animal predation, of I've yet to see a belt buckle which is consistent with those wounds either. Absent substantiation of any of those alternative claims, I'm left to figure those wounds came from a Special Forces Survival II knife, most likely the one found behind Baldwin's home.


Peretti presented autopsy photos of specific wounds along with the survival knife itself to substantiate their claims of consistency, so if you were a juror you'd have had a chance to study them and check the measurements for yourself just as Fogleman asked the jury to do. What inclines you to ignore such facts, and what inclines you away from acknowledging the consistency between the survival knife and the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which I demonstrated in this thread (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202132)?

Personally I've seen the photos, now I'm no expert and I've never seen anything but a cut finger/hand from a knife (in person, however i have seen numerous photos of stabwounds from another forum which is specifically death photos) so I can only give my personal opinion and looking at the wounds under the brow line I'm more inclined to say these are fingernail marks/something similar... I have my own photo to upload, but would like a mod to say its ok first..

There was a photo I saw with the wound having a somewhat t shaped appearance so in my own opinion peretti could be correct there.

kyleb
05-05-2013, 07:34 PM
The wounds under Stevie Branch's brow ridge look far more consistent with the survival knife than any fingernail marks or anything else I've ever seen. Also, the semicircle above looks far more consistent with the hilt of that survival knife than anything else I've ever seen. and a wider shot of Stevie Branch's face which shows comparable semicircles on his cheek can be seen at about 146:40 in PL2 (http://youtu.be/7mh3g1joFKk?t=1h46m40s), which I'll link along with the warning that picture is rather grotesque. If you have evidence to suggest any of the wounds which have been suggested are consistent with the lake knife actually aren't but which you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, please private message it to me.

ceecee30
05-05-2013, 08:42 PM
The wounds under Stevie Branch's brow ridge look far more consistent with the survival knife than any fingernail marks or anything else I've ever seen. Also, the semicircle above looks far more consistent with the hilt of that survival knife than anything else I've ever seen. and a wider shot of Stevie Branch's face which shows comparable semicircles on his cheek can be seen at about 146:40 in PL2 (http://youtu.be/7mh3g1joFKk?t=1h46m40s), which I'll link along with the warning that picture is rather grotesque. If you have evidence to suggest any of the wounds which have been suggested are consistent with the lake knife actually aren't but which you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, please private message it to me.

It's not that I'm not comfortable, I don't know forum rules on graphic pictures and just trying to do the right thing as a WS forum member..

Since you've posted pics ill happily share the pics I have found :)

I'm not saying they aren't consistent, I'm also not saying they are consistent either.

Could you be so kind to tell me where I may find pictures of the knife so I can look at it on my computer side by side to the facial wounds on Stevie Branch. TIA

ceecee30
05-05-2013, 08:46 PM
3339733398

The second picture with the T-Shaped mark to the left side of head I believe is consistent with a belt buckle..

If you hit someone on the head with a belt buckle with enough force I'd assume this is the sort of mark you'd see.

The first picture I know you have but I attached it as I still genuinely believe it looks like fingernail marks, same crescent type shape as you'd see from fingernails applied with extreme force.

To be completely honest I just can't see how they were made with a knife, but again I'm no expert I'm just going by visually what I see and assume made the marks

kyleb
05-05-2013, 11:20 PM
Of course I'm happy to provide a link to images of the survival knife (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/lake_knife_photos.html), and a photo of the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which includes a tape measure (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/lake_knife_photos.html) so you can check the scale against the photos of the knife.

Anyway, I do see what you're saying about fingernail marks in a general sense, but specifically the laceration closest to the nose is really more L-shaped than crescent like a fingernail, and matches well with the shape and scale of the saw teeth on the survival knife. Then there's the next one over, which taken alone I'd say looks more like a finger nail mark than anything, but it's shaped consistent with the survival knife too, and it's spacing from the aforementioned laceration next to the nose is consistent with the spacing between teeth on the saw edge of the knife. Given all that along with the rest of the evidence such as the semicircles which are consistent in shape and scale with the hilt of the knife, I've yet to find any reason to believe those wounds came from anything other that knife being pressed up against Stevie Branch's head.

As for the other photo you linked, I've seen that before, and those look to me like stab wounds, though without any distinguishing features to make them more consistent with the survival knife than a wide variety of other knife designs. Also, I've seen it argued that they couldn't be stab wounds because there was no underlying damage to the skull, but I've not seen anything to suggest an effort was made to look for underlying bone damage during the autopsy, so I'm at a loss as to how anyone could rightly rule out the possibility that they are in fact stab wounds from some knife.

And since were sharing photos, here's one which has been specifiably argued as claw marks from some sort of animal, but which are quite constant with the saw edge of the survival knife:

http://i.imgur.com/DBWpIP7.jpg

At first glance I thought the spacing of those five closely grouped scratches are far too close together to be from the survival knife, but upon pondering it a bit more I realized it is quite consistent with two strokes from the knife. Looking at the scratches from top left to bottom right, the first, third, and fifth were apparently made in one stroke, and the second and fourth with another stroke, taking into account that the chest is curved and that pressing a knife against it will spread out the skin as it's pressed flat. Anyway, I'm curious to hear your opinion on those wounds.

ceecee30
05-06-2013, 12:11 AM
Of course I'm happy to provide a link to images of the survival knife (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/lake_knife_photos.html), and a photo of the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which includes a tape measure (http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/lake_knife_photos.html) so you can check the scale against the photos of the knife.

Anyway, I do see what you're saying about fingernail marks in a general sense, but specifically the laceration closest to the nose is really more L-shaped than crescent like a fingernail, and matches well with the shape and scale of the saw teeth on the survival knife. Then there's the next one over, which taken alone I'd say looks more like a finger nail mark than anything, but it's shaped consistent with the survival knife too, and it's spacing from the aforementioned laceration next to the nose is consistent with the spacing between teeth on the saw edge of the knife. Given all that along with the rest of the evidence such as the semicircles which are consistent in shape and scale with the hilt of the knife, I've yet to find any reason to believe those wounds came from anything other that knife being pressed up against Stevie Branch's head.

As for the other photo you linked, I've seen that before, and those look to me like stab wounds, though without any distinguishing features to make them more consistent with the survival knife than a wide variety of other knife designs. Also, I've seen it argued that they couldn't be stab wounds because there was no underlying damage to the skull, but I've not seen anything to suggest an effort was made to look for underlying bone damage during the autopsy, so I'm at a loss as to how anyone could rightly rule out the possibility that they are in fact stab wounds from some knife.

And since were sharing photos, here's one which has been specifiably argued as claw marks from some sort of animal, but which are quite constant with the saw edge of the survival knife:

http://i.imgur.com/DBWpIP7.jpg

At first glance I thought the spacing of those five closely grouped scratches are far too close together to be from the survival knife, but upon pondering it a bit more I realized it is quite consistent with two strokes from the knife. Looking at the scratches from top left to bottom right, the first and third were apparently made in one stroke, and the second, fourth and fifth with another stroke, taking into account that the chest is curved and that pressing a knife against it will spread out the skin as it's pressed flat. Anyway, I'm curious to hear your opinion on those wounds.

I can see where it could be interpreted as claw marks, but as an animal owner myself and scratched numerous times by domestic animals, cats (spacing too close to be a domestic cat) a British bulldog (spacing again too close) and a ridgeback (again the spacing of the scratches are too close) can't say that either three animals I've listed would cause those particular marks.

Again I'm an Australian so my knowledge of wildlife in west Memphis is limited (and if you could enlighten me as to what wildlife would be in the region, I could make a better guess.. As unfortunately that's all I can do!)

We can agree to disagree on the forehead markings but I have to say that knowing what the survival knife looks like.. Then it could be a culprit in those particular scratchings on the (assuming) chest area

The reason I asked about the knife images and wildlife is that here in Australia our wildlife is so different to USA and the knife I don't think I've ever seen an Aussie survival knife like that...

*EDIT* However having a look again at the picture, it could be a smaller style dog more like your shitzu/Maltese sizing. As their scratches could be consistent with the spacing

gheckso
05-06-2013, 01:19 AM
Those scraps also look like they could have been caused by being dragged over a rough surface, something like roughly troweled concrete. The marks appear to have a layout similar to that of a trowel.

I believe these marks have been discussed on another thread in some depth also. Link (http://www.wm3blackboard.com/bb2-0/index.php?topic=838.0) I don't remember anyone attributing them to claw marks there but they may have. The deeper gouge may have been an irregularity in the concrete like exposed aggregate.


Just some thoughts. I know some people do not like the MHT but this is a discussion.

ceecee30
05-06-2013, 02:12 AM
Those scraps also look like they could have been caused by being dragged over a rough surface, something like roughly troweled concrete. The marks appear to have a layout similar to that of a trowel.

I believe these marks have been discussed on another thread in some depth also. Link (http://www.wm3blackboard.com/bb2-0/index.php?topic=838.0) I don't remember anyone attributing them to claw marks there but they may have. The deeper gouge may have been an irregularity in the concrete like exposed aggregate.


Just some thoughts. I know some people do not like the MHT but this is a discussion.

I didn't even think of that! The scratches looked familiar, now that you mention the dragging on a rough surface ie. concrete I think that's extremely plausible..

kyleb
05-06-2013, 02:38 AM
if you could enlighten me as to what wildlife would be in the region, I could make a better guess
I don't see why anyone else should put effort into guessing when the experts claiming they are claw marks are so coy about not saying what kind of animal they think they claw marks are from. For all any of us can know, they might imagine it was a sasquatch, or a chupacabra, but are rightly too embarrassed to say as much. If someone could show an example of a claw, or trowed concrete, which would leave comparable scrapes: with the first, third, and fifth starting slightly higher than the second and fourth, and all the cuts deeper on on side than the other and with spots of smooth skin in between, then there would be a reasonable argument that they might have been made something other than the knife found behind Baldwin's house. Absent that, I'm left to figure people are simply overlooking the obvious.

We can agree to disagree on the forehead markings
Are you unwilling to explain your disagreement regarding the forehead markings, and what about the semicircles on the cheek?

I don't remember anyone attributing them to claw marks there but they may have.
Not there, here:

WM3.org - Damien Echols - Defense Press Conference - Part 4 - YouTube

But they're just making assertions there, not providing any evidence to actually substantiate them, and literally waving their hands at the constancy between the spacing of the saw edge of of the knife and the scrapes.

ceecee30
05-06-2013, 03:49 AM
I don't see why anyone else should put effort into guessing when the experts claiming they are claw marks are so coy about not saying what kind of animal they think they claw marks are from. For all any of us can know, they might imagine it was a bigfoot, or chupacarbras, but are too embarrassed to say as much. If someone could show an example of a claw, or trowed concrete, which would leave comparable scrapes: with the first, third, and fifth starting slightly higher than the second and fourth, and all the cuts deeper on on side than the other and with spots of smooth skin in between, then there would be a reasonable argument that they might have been made something other than the knife found behind Baldwin's house. Absent that, I'm left to figure people are simply overlooking the obvious.


Are you unwilling to explain your disagreement regarding the forehead markings, and what about the circles on the cheek?
.

In relation to your first snipped quote, I am merely making a guess as to what animal caused the claw marks, since the experts believe it was animal predation.

I'm not unwilling to explain I just stated we can agree to disagree as you have very strong views on what you believe caused the wounds... But I don't have such quite strong views as you because I'm a fence sitter... I wish I had such strong views as yourself.

That and you have a far better overall knowledge of the case

kyleb
05-06-2013, 02:48 PM
I am merely making a guess as to what animal caused the claw marks, since the experts believe it was animal predation.
But as long as they are just making vague claims without presenting any actual evidence to substantiate them, why should you anyone else bother to speculate on those claims? Just because they are made by a few people with fancy credentials?

I'm not unwilling to explain I just stated we can agree to disagree as you have very strong views on what you believe caused the wounds... But I don't have such quite strong views as you because I'm a fence sitter... I wish I had such strong views as yourself.
My view is simply based on evaluating the evidence I've seen, so if you provide evidence to substantiate your disagreement, my view will change with respect to that.

ceecee30
05-06-2013, 03:55 PM
My view is simply based on evaluating the evidence I've seen, so if you provide evidence to substantiate your disagreement, my view will change with respect to that.

I'm not asking you to change your views, the people with fancy credentials that believe it was animal predation even you won't believe.. So how would I provide any evidence that would alter your views? I can't plain and simple.

All I'm merely doing is speculating as to what could have caused those particular markings, be it an animal, a knife, concrete etc.

Again I clarify that I am speculating based on the images I have seen from the autopsy.

kyleb
05-06-2013, 09:02 PM
So how would I provide any evidence that would alter your views?
Anyone who has evidence which contradicts my view can present it, and my view will change with respect to that. In this case, if someone provide examples of claws and or claw marks that are consistent with the spaces, then I'd believe the scrapes could have been caused by animal claws. However, since neither the experts nor anyone else has done as much, I've no reason to believe as much. I don't care about credentials at all, I only care about evidence.

reedus23
05-07-2013, 11:44 AM
Anyone who has evidence which contradicts my view can present it, and my view will change with respect to that. In this case, if someone provide examples of claws and or claw marks that are consistent with the spaces, then I'd believe the scrapes could have been caused by animal claws. However, since neither the experts nor anyone else has done as much, I've no reason to believe as much. I don't care about credentials at all, I only care about evidence.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe anyone is attempting to convince you of anything. You have your opinion and you're entitled to it. Ceecee was simply expressing her opinion and he/she is equally entitled to his/her opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to convince you of anything, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with you either.

kyleb
05-07-2013, 01:06 PM
I'm not sure what leads you to believe anyone is attempting to convince you of anything.
Well I'm at a loss as to how you imagined I believe as much, when in fact what you quoted from me is simply a response to Ceecee's question which I quoted in that post.

that doesn't mean we have to agree with you either.
Of course nobody has to agree with anyone. But again, by simply proclaiming disagreement one might as well be insisting that the Earth is flat. Rational discourse requires requires actually providing evidence to substantiate one's opinions, while simply making assertions isn't conducive to the spirit of a discussion forum.

Oh, and to save you a bit of typing in the future: it's safe to just use feminine pronouns to refer to Ceecee, as she mentioned having been pregnant earlier in this thread. And that reminds me, I meant save you some typing before by telling you that I'm a guy.

reedus23
05-07-2013, 03:30 PM
Well I'm at a loss as to how you imagined I believe as much

Respectfully snipped by me. Maybe I should have used the word view instead of opinion.

Anyone who has evidence which contradicts my view can present it, and my view will change with respect to that.

kyleb
05-07-2013, 03:49 PM
Again, that was not an expression of any belief that anyone is attempting to convince me of anything, but rather simply a response to Ceecee's question:

So how would I provide any evidence that would alter your views?

reedus23
05-07-2013, 04:38 PM
Again, that was not an expression of any belief that anyone is attempting to convince me of anything, but rather simply a response to Ceecee's question:

I will let it go as we are debating nothing pertinent to the case anyhow.

ceecee30
05-07-2013, 04:43 PM
Just to clarify... Ceecee is female :) and I'm not offended if anyone gets it wrong.. Ceecee is a fairly androgynous username!!

Kyle I managed to find some concrete that has ridges and trowels, through it when I was out walking yesterday.. I didn't manage to get a pic yesterday, but will be heading of that way again today and will post a pic.

Obviously I didn't have a ruler with me so I couldn't really compare the ridges in the concrete with the autopsy photo.

kyleb
05-07-2013, 05:40 PM
No worries as earlier in this thread Gheckso linked to this thread (http://www.wm3blackboard.com/bb2-0/index.php?topic=838.0) which has some images of troweled concrete, a trowel, and the scrapes on the chest. But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides. The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence for such to result in scrapes which just happened consistent with the saw edge of the knife found behind Baldwin's house, and even more so an amazing coincidence that the saw edge and hilt of that knife is also consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek.

That said, for those who do prefer to believe the scrapes might have come from troweled concrete, the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens. I suspect that would be a fool's errand though, for the reasons I've previously explained.

sloane7777
05-07-2013, 05:59 PM
here is my answer :) I dont think they did.

reedus23
05-07-2013, 06:06 PM
here is my answer :) I dont think they did.

I don't know if I'll ever be comfortable saying they did it or not, what I am comfortable saying is there is no direct evidence they did it and what circumstantial evidence was given at trial was questionable at best.

kyleb
05-07-2013, 06:12 PM
Misskelley's many confessions are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are.

reedus23
05-07-2013, 07:52 PM
Misskelley's many confessions are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are.

That confession is a flimsy as the paper it's written on. I saw that before I even knew the confession was challenged by the lawyers or even an issue at all.

gheckso
05-07-2013, 09:26 PM
No worries as earlier in this thread Gheckso linked to this thread (http://www.wm3blackboard.com/bb2-0/index.php?topic=838.0) which has some images of troweled concrete, a trowel, and the scrapes on the chest. But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides. The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence for such to result in scrapes which just happened consistent with the saw edge of the knife found behind Baldwin's house, and even more so an amazing coincidence that the saw edge and hilt of that knife is also consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek.

That said, for those who do prefer to believe the scrapes might have come from troweled concrete, the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens. I suspect that would be a fool's errand though, for the reasons I've previously explained.

You are making assumptions here that cannot be defended, if the child was dragged over a concrete structure we have no way of knowing the particulars of it, the condition of the concrete at the time, the way in which they were dragged, any exposed aggregate or reinforcement, whether or not the troweling job was sophisticated or just a rough once over. All you can gather from the pictures and the concrete theory is that the marks are similar and worthy of discussion.

For someone to test the hypothesis they would need to know all the particulars listed above, seems like a straw-man to me.

ceecee30
05-07-2013, 09:40 PM
No worries as earlier in this thread Gheckso linked to this thread (http://www.wm3blackboard.com/bb2-0/index.php?topic=838.0) which has some images of troweled concrete, a trowel, and the scrapes on the chest. But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides. The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence for such to result in scrapes which just happened consistent with the saw edge of the knife found behind Baldwin's house, and even more so an amazing coincidence that the saw edge and hilt of that knife is also consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek.

That said, for those who do prefer to believe the scrapes might have come from troweled concrete, the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens. I suspect that would be a fool's errand though, for the reasons I've previously explained.

Do you ride a bike at all? Ever experienced "road rash" I have and it did look quite similar..

Looks like ill have to get my partner to get a pig for our spit, so I can test my theory with the trimmings!

Ill have to look a geckos picture to see if its similar to the concrete i saw

kyleb
05-07-2013, 10:15 PM
That confession is a flimsy as the paper it's written on. I saw that before I even knew the confession was challenged by the lawyers or even an issue at all.
Waving one's hands at evidence doesn't make it go away. Furthermore, dismissing Misskelley's many confessions, including tape recorded ones, as if they were just one confession written on paper shows flagrant disregard for the facts of this case.

All you can gather from the pictures and the concrete theory is that the marks are similar and worthy of discussion.
No, I gather that the concrete hypothesis is utter claptrap for the reasons I stated above, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

For someone to test the hypothesis they would need to know all the particulars listed above
Rather, if the hypothesis had any basis in reality, one could derive the particulars you mentioned from studying the wounds, reproduce concrete capable of producing comparable scrapes, and demonstrate as much on pig skin. I'd do as much if I thought the concrete hypothesis might have some basis in reality, but I don't, and apparently the who do don't share my respect for the scientific method.

Do you ride a bike at all? Ever experienced "road rash" I have and it did look quite similar..
I have, and it looks generally similar, but different in the regards I explained previously.

That said, it's good to see neither of you two are sold on the defense experts' claims of claw marks.

gheckso
05-07-2013, 11:35 PM
No, I gather that the concrete hypothesis is utter claptrap for the reasons I stated above, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As I said, your reasons hold no place in reality as you are assuming knowledge of particulars listed earlier that you cannot have. Most of us here are not privy and wish not to be to the autopsy photographs with which I would have no expertise in studying anyhow.

I don't have the luxury of time to conduct any experiments and don't see how I could replicate a scene without knowing the scene anyhow. Hence the similar and worthy of discussion comment.


That said, it's good to see neither of you two are sold on the defense experts' claims of claw marks.

Not once have I claimed the claw marks are not possible. That's not to say I don't keep an open mind with this particular case.

Misskelley's many confessions are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are.

You are right there, we simply differ as to what its evidence of.

But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides.

I don't see any deepest to one side and tapering off to the other, I simply see scrap marks with light abrasion between them, with other abrasive marks with around the gouge, it also appears from what I can see that the abrasion also continues on the chin.

The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Are we looking at the same picture because I do see abrasions between the scrap marks? there are some scrap marks where the abrasions seem to fade, could this be where the perp is lifting the body off the concrete therefore not fully contacting the entire surface but only the ridges? just speculation.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence

I don't quite understand this, of course the skin would have to be slid on line with the ridges, how is this in any way a problematic situation.

the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens

You are simplifying a situation that may have been much more complex than simply rubbing some pig skin on concrete. The scientific method would involve replicating the exact particulars to obtain definitive results.

I'm not saying I believe the theory but I do believe it has merit.

kyleb
05-08-2013, 12:56 AM
Most of us here are not privy and wish not to be to the autopsy photographs with which I would have no expertise in studying anyhow.
Well then I won't bother discussing them with you further, aside from this anyway:


Not once have I claimed the claw marks are not possible.
Nor have I suggested you did. What I said is, "it's good to see neither of you two are sold on the defense experts' claims of claw marks" as if you were sold on those claims you'd be arguing that the scrapes couldn't be anything but claw marks.

You are right there, we simply differ as to what its evidence of.
And what exactly do you take Misskelley's many confessions to be evidence of: that he was somehow brainwashed into confessing not only to the cops on 6/3, but also to his lawyer on 6/11, again to his lawyer again on 8/19, to police from another country as they took him back to prison after his conviction on 2/4, yet again to his lawyer on 2/8, and finally to the prosecution against the advice of council on 2/17? And do you believe that Buddy Lucas lied about Misskelley confessing to him the day after the murders, or do you contend that brainwashing took place prior to that? I'm just guessing since you're so coy about explaining, but feel free to offer alternative explanations.

reedus23
05-08-2013, 01:24 AM
Waving one's hands at evidence doesn't make it go away. Furthermore, dismissing Misskelley's many confessions, including tape recorded ones, as if they were just one confession written on paper shows flagrant disregard for the facts of this case.

It obviously doesn't make it go away and that's a damn scary thing because an innocent man can be convicted on such a questionable piece of evidence. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about whether it's one confession he tried to regurgitate on subsequent occasions or multiple confessions. That's a meaningless argument you use to try to distract from the fact that the original confession isn't worth a damn.

reedus23
05-08-2013, 01:27 AM
No, I gather that the concrete hypothesis is utter claptrap for the reasons I stated above, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I suppose this is another example of where you're actually not inviting people to try to get you to change your opinion.

gheckso
05-08-2013, 01:33 AM
And what exactly do you take Misskelley's many confessions to be evidence of: that he was somehow brainwashed into confessing not only to the cops on 6/3, but also to his lawyer on 6/11, again to his lawyer again on 8/19, to police from another country as they took him back to prison after his conviction on 2/4, yet again to his lawyer on 2/8, and finally to the prosecution against the advice of council on 2/17? And do you believe that Buddy Lucas lied about Misskelley confessing to him the day after the murders, or do you contend that brainwashing took place prior to that? I'm just guessing since you're so coy about explaining, but feel free to offer alternative explanations.

JMO but I believe Misskelley's confessions to be evidence of a young mentally challenged (to what degree?) person being pulled into a system he had no knowledge of and further pulled in two different directions by both the defense and the prosecution, I believe he would have been offered certain deals (of course there is no evidence of this) for his co-operation. I believe he could have been easily manipulated to say/believe anything.

Do I believe Buddy's statements, no.

In no way are these explanations but merely my opinions.

Just on the manipulation thing though, I have a brother that is some what mentally challenged (Diagnosed slow learning) and I know for a fact I could still manipulate him and he is much older than Jessie was at the time. I could have made him believe and say the Earth was flat when he was 18. Coaching or whatever you want to call it is IMO not that big of a stretch. Albeit murder is a very serious matter, I don't believe he ever thought he would be charged for such.

reedus23
05-08-2013, 02:04 AM
And what exactly do you take Misskelley's many confessions to be evidence of: that he was somehow brainwashed into confessing not only to the cops on 6/3, but also to his lawyer on 6/11, again to his lawyer again on 8/19, to police from another country as they took him back to prison after his conviction on 2/4, yet again to his lawyer on 2/8, and finally to the prosecution against the advice of council on 2/17? And do you believe that Buddy Lucas lied about Misskelley confessing to him the day after the murders, or do you contend that brainwashing took place prior to that? I'm just guessing since you're so coy about explaining, but feel free to offer alternative explanations.

Disregarding your use of the word brainwashing, I believe that Misskelley's one confession that he attempted to regurgitate on subsequent occasions was the product of extremely questionable police tactics applied to a teenage boy who whose mental makeup made him extremely susceptible to such tactics.

reedus23
05-08-2013, 02:14 AM
JMO but I believe Misskelley's confessions to be evidence of a young mentally challenged (to what degree?) person being pulled into a system he had no knowledge of and further pulled in two different directions by both the defense and the prosecution, I believe he would have been offered certain deals (of course there is no evidence of this) for his co-operation. I believe he could have been easily manipulated to say/believe anything.

Do I believe Buddy's statements, no.

In no way are these explanations but merely my opinions.

Just on the manipulation thing though, I have a brother that is some what mentally challenged (Diagnosed slow learning) and I know for a fact I could still manipulate him and he is much older than Jessie was at the time. I could have made him believe and say the Earth was flat when he was 18. Coaching or whatever you want to call it is IMO not that big of a stretch. Albeit murder is a very serious matter, I don't believe he ever thought he would be charged for such.

I have no doubt he was manipulated. There was manipulation going on in the recorded portion...can you imagine how much manipulation was going on as soon as that recorder was off? I have my suspicions that between the 2 recorded confessions, they went to go get warrants, the Judge said not a chance based on the obviously false confession, so they came back and told Jessie, before recording again, something along the lines of "Dammit Jessie, the Judge won't issue a warrant for Damien because you said noon, not 8." and then turned the recorder back on.

kyleb
05-08-2013, 11:52 AM
I believe he would have been offered certain deals (of course there is no evidence of this) for his co-operation.
Believing things which have no evidence to substantiate them is almost certain to put one's beliefs at odds with reality.

can you imagine how much manipulation was going on as soon as that recorder was off?
What manipulation are you asking to be imagined here exactly? For example, do you suppose this exchange at the end of Misskelley's first recorded statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html) was the result of manipulation?:

RIDGE: Are you scared of the police now?
JESSIE: No
RIDGE: You are not, so we've treated you well?
JESSIE: Yes
If so, do you figure that before the recording started Ridge and Gitchell told Misskelley they'd kill everyone he cares about unless he answered those questions and the ones before them as he did, or how exactly do you suppose Misskelley's responses there are false? Furthermore, Misskelley said "all of this stuff happened that night" moments before he said "I went home about noon" in that first recorded statement, and the second recorded statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html) started with:

Gitchell: Jessie, uh, when when you got with the boys and with Jason Baldwin when you three were in the woods and then little boys come up, about what time was it? When the boys come up to the woods?
Jessie: I would say it was about 5 or so 5 or 6.
Gitchell: Know, did you have your watch on at the time?
Jessie: Huh uh (no)
Gitchell: You didn't have your watch on?
Jessie: Huh uh (no)
Gitchell: Uh, alright you told me earlier around 7 or 8, which time is it?
Jessie: It was 7 or 8.
Gitchell: Are you
Jessie: It was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, it
Jessie: I remember it was starting to get dark.
That hardly supports the hypnosis that Misskelley was told to say 8 before recording, as he started out saying the boys showed hours up earlier in the recording. But then he switches from describing time in numbers to "starting to get dark", which is consistent the "all of this stuff happened that night" from his first recorded statement. So where is there any evidence to suggest that Misskelley simply wasn't one of many people who have a poor understanding of time in terms of names and numbers, at least at that time in his life? And where is there any actual evidence to suggest that Misskelley was manipulated into confessing at all?

reedus23
05-08-2013, 05:28 PM
Believing things which have no evidence to substantiate them is almost certain to put one's beliefs at odds with reality.

Just because you didn't see that tree fall in the forest doesn't mean it didn't fall.

What manipulation are you asking to be imagined here exactly? For example, do you suppose this exchange at the end of Misskelley's first recorded statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html) was the result of manipulation?:

The questions you cite are meaningless. That's like your wife asking if she looks fat in that dress. No husband that wants to remain married is going to say yes.

If so, do you figure that before the recording started Ridge and Gitchell told Misskelley they'd kill everyone he cares about unless he answered those questions and the ones before them as he did, or how exactly do you suppose Misskelley's responses there are false? Furthermore, Misskelley said "all of this stuff happened that night" moments before he said "I went home about noon" in that first recorded statement, and the second recorded statement (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html) started with:

Now you're just being silly. Threatening to kill everyone he cares about? You really can't be that naive to think that is the only way LE manipulates situations.

That hardly supports the hypnosis that Misskelley was told to say 8 before recording, as he started out saying the boys showed hours up earlier in the recording. But then he switches from describing time in numbers to "starting to get dark", which is consistent the "all of this stuff happened that night" from his first recorded statement. So where is there any evidence to suggest that Misskelley simply wasn't one of many people who have a poor understanding of time in terms of names and numbers, at least at that time in his life? And where is there any actual evidence to suggest that Misskelley was manipulated into confessing at all?

So I take that to mean you believe the various alibi witnesses may be telling the truth and are simply off on their times and names? Heck, their times were a lot closer than when I got out of bed and right before I went to bed. As to evidence Jessie was manipulated, I do believe you are smart enough to understand that is an opinion that is arrived at after reviewing the so called confessions. So your evidence is in the questions and answers themselves. You are certainly free to disagree and I respect that opinion but also respectfully disagree with it.

reedus23
05-08-2013, 05:31 PM
I had actually copied both "confessions" to word so I could insert my thoughts and opinions on the coercion/manipulation that was going on as I was going through it again. Something tells me it would be a futile practice to post it. Come to think of it, I don't even know how to post it.

ceecee30
05-08-2013, 05:54 PM
I had actually copied both "confessions" to word so I could insert my thoughts and opinions on the coercion/manipulation that was going on as I was going through it again. Something tells me it would be a futile practice to post it. Come to think of it, I don't even know how to post it.

Are you using a phone or computer to post on here reedus?

If its a phone, then I can't help! I've only just learnt how to quote multiple people!!

gheckso
05-08-2013, 08:15 PM
Believing things which have no evidence to substantiate them is almost certain to put one's beliefs at odds with reality.


Another Strawman and as Reedus23 pointed out, there is evidence if one looks at the statements (especially the first).

btw I think I remember someone (tongue in cheek) quoting, "Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence"


I had actually copied both "confessions" to word so I could insert my thoughts and opinions on the coercion/manipulation that was going on as I was going through it again. Something tells me it would be a futile practice to post it. Come to think of it, I don't even know how to post it.

You might have already seen this one but I think it highlights many errors very well. Confession with Comments (http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieFirstStatement.htm)

Cappuccino
05-08-2013, 09:52 PM
..

Forget it, I can't be bothered with this case any more. Get back to me when some new evidence arrives.

reedus23
05-09-2013, 01:17 AM
Are you using a phone or computer to post on here reedus?

If its a phone, then I can't help! I've only just learnt how to quote multiple people!!

Most of the time from a computer. What's the trick to quoting multiple people?