Reserving comment on on you claims of fact regarding Crowley for now, what do you make of the many who raise issue with Echols' murder conviction without even doing enough cursory homework on the subject realize Echols lived in West Memphis around the time of the murders, and what is your take on Echols' and others denials of that fact?
I'm not 'claiming' anything. I'm stating a fact, re Crowley.
As to the various quibbles people have had in the past -- a/ I'm not here to join or disparage anyone's pet camp, and b/ I think it's all but moot now the WM3 have been released from prison.. I'm more interested in gaining further understanding of what actually happened, both to the WM3 and the murdered boys, and nothing more as nothing I have to say or do can possibly make a difference to either case. That said..
My understanding is that Echols lived in apartments close to the crime scene when he was a small child. I can kind of get why he might not think to include that in his present reality -- lots of places I lived as a small child (we moved a lot) aren't familiar me to now and weren't even when I lived there, really.. The reality of little children is not that of a teenager. Memory is unreliable, the further one gets from it, especially when dealing with younger kids.
As for familiarity later on, if indeed Echols was lying about that, there's two major reasons I can think of that he might do so:
1. He was guilty.
2. He was innocent, but knew admitting knowledge of the area would be fuel to those accusing him.
Seeing that the WM3 are no longer in prison, and have gained support even among the victim's parents now, I am inclined to look at that second possibility more closely than if this was not so.
Echols, like many kids growing up in homes described as 'dysfunctional', and like many kids with low self-esteem, was an out and out liar as a teenager - and isn't allergic to telling a few porky pies even now, I believe.
Lying about such things while at trial for a triple murder isn't smart, and isn't right. But it is, for a kid like the teenaged Echols, understandable.
Especially if he had the sense that all three of them were being railroaded. Which, if they are innocent, they most certainly were.