1218 users online (207 members and 1011 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495

    Analyzing the Evidence Against Echols

    Now that we have been able to brainstorm about exactly what the evidence against Damien Echols was, I thought we could now do that comprehensive analysis of all the evidence and demonstrate how and why there is reasonable doubt as to Echols guilt, or for others, how and why there is no reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Regardless, at that point, it cannot be argued that another is not acknowledging all of the evidence in coming to their conclusions nor that one has failed to comprehensively analyze all of the evidence against Echols

    Here is the list of evidence I have brought over from the other thread.

    1. Damien's lifestyle/writing (1 and 2 from CR).
    2. Fibers
    3. Girl's club girls
    4. Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth
    5. Lake knife
    6. Sticks
    7. Wax
    8. Echol's knowledge of unconfirmed details of the murders.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    1. My take on the evidence. Damien certainly was different. I also think he's incredibly smart. He definitely had an interest in dark subjects. I think he liked to be shocking, not just for the sake of being shocking but to see how people react to the shocking. I think he played a game with it, almost like he was trying to demonstrate how predictable humans are.

    Having said that, it is proof of absolutely nothing. There are plenty of people who live different lifestyles that don't commit murder, so living such a life is absolutely no proof of murder. Same can be said whether it's an interest in the occult, devil worshiping, satanism or death in general.

    It goes without saying that repeating song lyrics and even coming up with some of your own words that happen to be dark, discuss death, devil worshiping or any other interest is proof of nothing as well. If it were proof of anything, I would suggest that Poe and Hitchcock would have been suspects in every murder committed during their time. Had the writings mentioned the victims by name and discussed what he was going to do to them, then I'd say the writings are relevant. As they are though, they are meaningless.

    Not one item in this category of evidence establishes Damien committed the murders to the exclusion of others and certainly does nothing to remove any reasonable doubt.

    2. The fibers evidence, even on their best day, did not point to Damien any more than they pointed to countless tens of thousands of people in the West Memphis area alone. When evidence is so generic, I don't know how anyone can argue that this evidence eliminates any reasonable doubt either.

    3. Frankly, I think this was probably the highlight of the prosecution's case. From what I have gathered, the girls didn't run in the same crowds and didn't have an axe to grind. However, hearsay such as this, even if it does fall within an exception, is always problematic. Even if what they claimed was, in fact, said, how do we know if it wasn't said for shock value. Or because Damien was growing tired of all the suspicious looks? Not a whole lot different than Morgan throwing up his hands in frustration. So, even giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt, this evidence may sway the needle but certainly does not sway it beyond reasonable doubt.

    4. Hollingsworth's testimony is almost meaningless. Personally, I think they have serious credibility issues. Additionally, they would have only seen the persons for brief seconds. Finally, even if you give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt, seeing Damien and Domini on the road does not fit their theory and certainly does not establish that Damien murdered the boys as opposed to anyone else. Under that scenario, he was on the road with Domini...so what? And for the prosecution to then suggest that their own witnesses weren't accurate? That is almost the definition of creating reasonable doubt in and of itself than it is eliminating reasonable doubt.

    5. The lake knife is as meaningless or more so than any other piece of evidence. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that this knife was Damien's or Jason's or Jessie's. Someone saying he owned a similar one does not establish that this one was his. At the end of the day, it is a knife that has ZERO ties to any of the WM3 and has ZERO ties to the crime itself. As such, the knife does not point towards Damien having committed the murders to the exclusion of others and if anything, does more to create reasonable doubt than to eliminate it.

    6. The only stick that held any meaning was the stick that held the clothes down. However, neither that stick nor the others were tied to Damien in any way whatsoever. As for the other sticks, there is absolutely ZERO tying them to the crime. The prosecution could have found a stick in Oregon and said it could have created the same type of injuries and it would have as much meaning as the sticks introduced at trial. With absolutely ZERO tying the sticks(other than the one holding the clothes down) to the murders and even less tying the sticks to Damien, there is no reasonable argument that can be made that the sticks establish that Damien committed the murders to the exclusion of others and again creates more reasonable doubt as opposed to eliminating that doubt.

    7. The wax is even weaker than the fiber. I could be wrong, but I think we all but eliminated the wax as evidence to consider when it was determined that the prosecution couldn't even establish that it was candle wax but only that it could be.

    8. On 5/9, in answers to the questionairre, Damien said the boys were cut up. No other reference to any facts surrounding the murders. No reference to any such facts were made in Griffin or Durham's notes of 5/9. On 5/10, Damien again answered the questionairre and in those answers he said it wasn't an accident, the boys were mutliated, all 3 were cut up, one may have been worse than the others and they drowned. In the notes, Steve Jones told him testicles were cut off, urinated in mouth and put in water. In the same notes, says at least one may have been cut and that stones, candle, knife and crystals would be in the area. Ridge's report on interview and Ridge's report on Echols interview simply reiterate what was in the notes. There were no facts surrounding the murders discussed in the polygraph or in Durham's notes. Having gone through all of the investigative reports through 5/10, those are every statement attributed to Damien that concerned facts surrounding the murder.

    So what confirmed details about the murder did Echols have? Obviously, there was tons of media coverage and even more rumors circulating. However, just one article is needed to demonstrate that everything stated by Damien had already been put in print. Here is just a portion of an article from the Commercial Appeal on 5/7:

    MUTILATED BODIES OF 3 BOYS FOUND IN BAYOU
    HUNT ON FOR SUSPECT IN W. MEMPHIS

    By Richard Kelley The Commercial Appeal
    Staff reporter Lloyd Holbeck and The Associated Press contributed to
    this story.

    Three 8-year-old boys were found slain Thursday, their bodies submerged in a drainage ditch.
    West Memphis police would not comment on the cause of death, but an Arkansas State Police broadcast Thursday night said West Memphis police were investigating the abduction and sexual mutilation of three boys.

    Police are searching for whoever killed three 8-year-old schoolmates whose submerged bodies were found Thursday afternoon in Ten-Mile Bayou.

    An Arkansas State Police broadcast alerting regional authorities to the slayings said the hands of the boys had been tied behind their backs and that they had been sexually mutilated.
    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying the boys were cut up an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO

    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying it wasn't an accident an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO

    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying the boys were mutilated an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO – Even the headline screams it.

    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying the 3 boys were cut up an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO

    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying that one boy may have been cut up worse than the others an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO – It is a statement of the obvious first of all.

    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying the boys may have drowned an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO – As that's a reasonable deduction from the article stating they had been placed in water.

    So when questioned on 5/9 and 5/10, was saying that there would be stones, candles, knives or crystals at the scene an unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien had knowledge of? NO – because it is inaccurate.

    Consequently, not only does the last item of evidence not point to Damien having committed the crimes to the exclusion of others, but it is flat out false. The prosecution putting forth evidence that is not only tenuous but false does nothing to eliminate reasonable doubt but creates even more of it.

    In summary, working off of our 8 categories, 7 absolutely do not directly tie Damien to the murders to the exclusion of others even if every benefit of the doubt was given to the prosecution. Beyond that, such evidence was thin, filled with “could be's” instead of any meaningful connections, irrelevant or even flat out false. The 8th item, the softball girl's testimony may sway a needle, but it doesn't sway it to the point of saying Damien is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With ZERO direct, physical evidence that directly ties Damien to the murders in any form or fashion, not only is it reasonable to have reasonable doubt, it is unreasonable to say otherwise.

    And that is only based on the prosecution's case. The defense hasn't even put on any evidence yet.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Do you realize that your argument basically boils down to no smoking gun proves reasonable doubt? That's not the way logic works, nor our legal system, and dismissing evidence with speculation is something juries are specifically instructed not to do. Rather, to rightly comprehend a body of evidence, one must consider each piece of evidence within the context of the whole, and determine what conclusions can derived from that with the least amount of supposition. In that respect the notion of "to the exclusion of others" requires evidence which reasonably demonstrates an alternative suspect, as one can't rightly ever exclude the possibility of some intangible other who left no incriminating evidence.

    Until you can get over that hump there's really no point in addressing your arguments. However, since you took the time to type out what you did I'll go ahead and touch on some points, though I'll skip over claims of consistency regarding fibers and the wax since the evidence isn't available for us to evaluate like it was for the jury at the trial.

    First off, Jodee Medford and Christi VanVickle's testimony is not hearsay, but rather witness reports of Echols confessing to having committed the murders. Donna Medford's testimony is hearsay, but was aloud to refute the defense's attempt to dismiss the girls witness reports as recent fabrications.

    As for Echols knowledge of the murders. Here's some of the relevant testimony:

    13 Q. Okay. Now, on question number 9 when he asked you
    14 how you think they died and the answer is, "Mutilation,
    15 cut up all three, heard they were in the water
    16 drowning, cut up one more than the others." Is that
    17 again what Officer Ridge said and you just agreed?
    18 A. No, I had saw that on TV, newspapers, people
    19 talking.
    20 Q. And you knew about the drowning, correct?
    21 A. I knew they were in the water. I didn't know that
    22 they drowned.
    23 Q. You knew that one was cut up more than the others?
    24 A. Whenever they were asking me about mutilation, I
    25 thought different from mutilation. What I call
    2816

    1 mutilation was different from what I seen up here.
    2 Q. I was asking about one being cut up more than the
    3 others.
    4 A. He asked me was it possible. He said, "Do you
    5 think one was hurt worse than the others?" I said,
    6 "Yeah, I guess."
    7 Q. Oh, so again that particular area was one of those
    8 things where Officer Ridge told you and that wasn't
    9 your response? You just responded about the drowning
    10 and mutilation?
    11 A. If he didn't get the answer he liked, he would go
    12 back and try to get me to say something else.
    13 Q. And it is your testimony specifically that you
    14 weren't the one who said one was cut up more than the
    15 other?
    16 A. No, I did not.
    17 Q. That was Officer Ridge that said that?
    18 A. I agreed with him when he said that.
    19 Q. Okay. But the other parts of that answer were
    20 your words, not Mr. Ridge's?
    21 A. (Indicating)
    Mutilation comes in various forms, being cut up is just one of them, and one being cut up more than the others would only be obvious to those who had seen the victims. Also, victims being recovered from the water doesn't rightly infer they were drowned in it, particularly in the context of mutilation. Of course one could've heard from someone who saw the victims and took their word for it as Echols did regarding castration, but he offered no such explanation for one being cut up more than the other and the drowning. Instead, it came down to a matter of credibility between Echols and Ridge, and the jury would've been fools to consider Echols more credible after this exchange:

    11 Q. It is east of 14th Street and south of the service
    12 road and the interstate. In that particular
    13 neighborhood, Market Street, Goodwin, in there, did you
    14 and Jason frequently walk and roam in that area, the
    15 same neighborhood where the three victims lived?
    16 A. I think by looking at the map I would have had to.
    17 Q. How often?
    18 A. Probably in that area maybe twice a week.
    19 Q. For how long a period?
    20 A. A few years.
    21 Q. How many?
    22 A. Probably at least two years.
    23 Q. All right. And that, when you told us yesterday
    24 that you hadn't been over in that area, the residential
    25 area near Robin Hood Hills, were you just not thinking
    2800

    1 of that particular area?
    2 A. No, when you said "neighborhood," I just didn't
    3 know what you are talking about, what that neighborhood
    4 is.
    5 Q. But when I specified that particular area, the
    6 neighborhood that I circled, you were there two or
    7 three times a week?
    8 A. Probably an average of two to three times a week.
    That evidence has to be considered in Hollingsworths witness reports of seeing Echols near the scene of the murders covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies in the creek would be. Then there the constancy between the knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's house, wounds on the victims, and what Dena Holcomb testified to witnessing Echols carry. Taken together, one has to imagine some rather massive combination of coincidence and conspiracy, and again some intangible other who left no such traces.
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    Do you realize that your argument basically boils down to no smoking gun proves reasonable doubt? That's not the way logic works, nor our legal system, and dismissing evidence with speculation is something juries are specifically instructed not to do.
    Thought I would respond to this separately. I think I have a pretty good grasp of how the legal system works. Further, as I see it, it requires a more significant breakdown in logic to say that the limited evidence cited is dispositive of guilt. It is quite a leap of faith. Finally, the problem with much of the evidence cited is that the evidence itself is speculative. There is no proof that the lake knife, for example, belonged to any of the WM3 or that the lake knife was used in these crimes. It would require one to speculate that there is any connection at all. It is because a vast majority of that evidence requires such speculation in order to make a connection that I feel there is unquestionably reasonable doubt in this case.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    First off, Jodee Medford and Christi VanVickle's testimony is not hearsay, but rather witness reports of Echols confessing to having committed the murders. Donna Medford's testimony is hearsay, but was aloud to refute the defense's attempt to dismiss the girls witness reports as recent fabrications.
    Hearsay is generally defined as a statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. They offered Damien's out of court statement as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement, namely that he murdered the 3 boys. Now there are exemptions and exceptions to the hearsay rule and some would argue it is hearsay but exempted from the hearsay rule while others would argue because it is exempted, it isn't hearsay at all. Either way, it is properly admissible and I didn't mean to infer it wasn't. I would argue actually Donna's testimony wasn't hearsay at all under your scenario. In that instance, her testimony isn't being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted(whether the children told her that) but is being offered to establish when it was said. Subtle difference, but if it's not being offered to prove the truth of the matter that is actually being asserted, it isn't hearsay.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    Mutilation comes in various forms, being cut up is just one of them, and one being cut up more than the others would only be obvious to those who had seen the victims. Also, victims being recovered from the water doesn't rightly infer they were drowned in it, particularly in the context of mutilation. Of course one could've heard from someone who saw the victims and took their word for it as Echols did regarding castration, but he offered no such explanation for one being cut up more than the other and the drowning. Instead, it came down to a matter of credibility between Echols and Ridge, and the jury would've been fools to consider Echols more credible after this exchange:
    Even if you believe the conversation went as the prosecution suggested, one being cut up more than the others is simply a statement of the obvious. Like no 2 snow flakes are alike. Well, if 3 kids are cut up, they aren't going to be cut up identically, so one has to be cut up worse than the other 2. I don't have to see any pictures and I can tell you that one of the Labianca's was cut up worse than the others by the Manson family. That doesn't move the pendulum towards guilt one iota.

    Regarding the drowning, first, the news talked about bound children submerged in water. Not a leap of faith to think about drowning then IMHO. From the 5/10 notes, it is recorded that Damien said "Probably died of mutilation. Some guy cut up. Heard in water. May have drowned." I truly do not see anything from that where it can be argued that Damien is providing unconfirmed details of the crime. "May have drowned" is certainly a possibility if you read that the children were bound and submerged in water as was reported. Again, even taking the testimony in a light most favorable to the prosecution, I see absolutely ZERO instances where Damien is demonstrating knowledge of unconfirmed details of the murders. Consequently, it again doesn't move that pendulum one iota towards guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    That evidence has to be considered in Hollingsworths witness reports of seeing Echols near the scene of the murders covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies in the creek would be. Then there the constancy between the knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's house, wounds on the victims, and what Dena Holcomb testified to witnessing Echols carry. Taken together, one has to imagine some rather massive combination of coincidence and conspiracy, and again some intangible other who left no such traces.
    Evidence that Damien walked in that neighborhood 2 or 3 times a week? What's that got to do with the murders? I would bet there were people that walked by there daily. Again, the things discussed here all require me to speculate hugely. There is absolutely ZERO that ties the knife to the WM3 nor to the crime. Maybe's...Could be's...Possibly's simply do not move that pendulum one iota towards guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for me.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    Hearsay is generally defined as a statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
    The matter asserted is that Echols confessed to the murders at the softball game, and the girls offered testimony to that effect at trial. Echols denied having made that statement, pitting his credibility against theirs, which he would've know was a loosing battle if he was as anywhere near as intelligent as he and his many apologists like to imagine him.

    As for Echols' knowledge of the murders, his questionnaire answers are the most direct record of that, and that is what Davis quoted at the trial. Regarding those answers, given the confirmed details of the murders on 5/10 all three could be cut up about the same, or one cut up less than the other two, but one cut up worse than the others accurately describes the case at hand. Also, sexual mutilation can kill in itself, leaving the point of the submersion being only to hide the bodies, as was the case with Christopher Byers. Regardless, your "a leap of faith" explanation is not what Echols offered on the stand, and rather he attempted to pit his credibility against Ridge's, which again was a stupid move.

    As for Echols familiarity with the neighborhood, that's evidence of means. Of course it's not strong evidence in itself by any stretch, but his failed attempt to deny even such weak evidence discredited him for any reasonably objective observer. Echols only hurt his case by taking the stand, and the body evidence presented against him at trial was strong, regardless of how much he and his apologists like to imagine otherwise. the first Paradise Lost even has a clip of his lawyers attempting to get him to comprehend as much here:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qoXVjcKjLE#t=7827s"]Paradise Lost-The Child Murders At Robin Hood Hills - YouTube[/ame]

    But again, to understand the body of evidence you've got to consider each of the pieces in the context of the whole, not simply disregard each piece for being less than a smoking gun. By the standards you're attempting to apply here all but dumbest of criminals would roam free, and that's not the standards by which our justice system operates.
    Last edited by kyleb; 07-03-2013 at 03:46 PM.
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    The matter asserted is that Echols confessed to the murders at the softball game, and the girls offered testimony to that effect at trial. Echols denied having made that statement, pitting his credibility against theirs, which he would've know was a loosing battle if he was as anywhere near as intelligent as he and his many apologists like to imagine him.
    Like I intimated before, with witnesses that apparently have no axe to grind, he probably would have been better off saying he stated something close to that but they took it out of context and then gave it the context at trial.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    As for Echols' knowledge of the murders, his questionnaire answers are the most direct record of that, and that is what Davis quoted at the trial. Regarding those answers, given the confirmed details of the murders on 5/10 all three could be cut up about the same, or one cut up less than the other two, but one cut up worse than the others accurately describes the case at hand. Also, sexual mutilation can kill in itself, leaving the point of the submersion being only to hide the bodies, as was the case with Christopher Byers. Regardless, your "a leap of faith" explanation is not what Echols offered on the stand, and rather he attempted to pit his credibility against Ridge's, which again was a stupid move.
    I think you're making my point for me. Every detail that is contained in his answers could be gleaned from reading the paper. Those details had been reported on. So what unconfirmed details about the murders did Echols have knowledge of?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    As for Echols familiarity with the neighborhood, that's evidence of means. Of course it's not strong evidence in itself by any stretch, but his failed attempt to deny even such weak evidence discredited him for any reasonably objective observer. Echols only hurt his case by taking the stand, and the body evidence presented against him at trial was strong, regardless of how much he and his apologists like to imagine otherwise. the first Paradise Lost even has a clip of his lawyers attempting to get him to comprehend as much here:
    Ok, let's say you have successfully and thoroughly destroyed Echols' credibility. So you don't believe anything he says. That's not evidence of guilt. That simply means you're not going to believe a word he says. That doesn't impact my initial analysis of the evidence.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    he probably would have been better off saying he stated something close to that but they took it out of context and then gave it the context at trial.
    If that were the truth it would've rolled right of an honest person's tongue, or perhaps they might legitimately not recall and state as much. Echols is far from an honest person though, and nor is he intelligent enough to have come up with the lie you suggest before taking the stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    I think you're making my point for me.
    It doesn't shock me that you'd think that, but to actually make your point you'd have to provide evidence that the drowning and one boy being cut up more than the others were confirmed in newspapers or such by 5/10, and I'm pretty sure that's an impossible task.

    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    Ok, let's say you have successfully and thoroughly destroyed Echols' credibility.
    That's not true. In reality Echols destroyed his own credibility for anyone paying attention long before I ever even heard of him. And of course that's not evidence of guilt, but it's a fact which must be taken into consideration to properly evaluate the evidence presented at trial, regardless of how intent you remain on doing otherwise.
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    But again, to understand the body of evidence you've got to consider each of the pieces in the context of the whole, not simply disregard each piece for being less than a smoking gun. By the standards you're attempting to apply here all but dumbest of criminals would roam free, and that's not the standards by which our justice system operates.
    I understand what you are saying, but the circumstantial evidence, outside of the softball girls, in no way connect the dots to only Damien as the perpetrator. What you are asking one to rely on in order to connect those dots is the fact that one had dark interests much like untold thousands of people in the area, a knife that could have been anybody's and has no established connection to the murders, fibers that could have come from anybody and have no established connection to the murders, wax that may or may not be from a candle and has no established connection to the case, 1 stick that was connected to the murders and the rest of which have no connection to the murders while none of the sticks have any connection to the defendant, 2 witnesses whose stories don't support the prosecution's theory and no demonstrated knowledge on behalf of the defendant of unconfirmed details of the murders. That is a whole lot of not connected and could be anybody's that you are asking to be put together.

    Give me some circumstantial evidence such as Damien's shoe print was at the scene, or Damien had something belonging to the boys, or an item of Damien's was left at the scene, or bloody clothes in Damien's possession. Give me circumstantial evidence that doesn't have any other reasonable explanation.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    If that were the truth it would've rolled right of an honest person's tongue, or perhaps they might legitimately not recall and state as much. Echols is far from an honest person though, and nor is he intelligent enough to have come up with the lie you suggest before taking the stand.


    It doesn't shock me that you'd think that, but to actually make your point you'd have to provide evidence that the drowning and one boy being cut up more than the others were confirmed in newspapers or such by 5/10, and I'm pretty sure that's an impossible task.


    That's not true. In reality Echols destroyed his own credibility for anyone paying attention long before I ever even heard of him. And of course that's not evidence of guilt, but it's a fact which must be taken into consideration to properly evaluate the evidence presented at trial, regardless of how intent you remain on doing otherwise.
    Still waiting on unconfirmed details that Echols had knowledge of. So far, again, everything could be gleaned from media reports, much less the rumor mill.

    As to Echols' credibility, man, you like to even argue when one is conceding a point to you. His credibility is destroyed by whatever means and for whatever reason kyle deems fit. The evidence is being viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution. Even then, though, the dots just do not connect.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    No dots will ever connect as long as you insist on disregarding them, which of course all sorts of people do regarding all sorts of things. Also, it's not that I like to argue, but rather that I like to respect the facts, and hence I was compelled to take issue with your inversion of cause and effect.
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Analyzing the area where Hailey was found
    By Cherokee in forum Hailey Dunn
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 05-16-2013, 12:34 PM
  2. Scent Evidence ... Reliable Evidence Or Junk Science?
    By Wudge in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:55 AM

Tags for this Thread