On False Testimony (and other incriminating statements)

[Ausgirl]

.. because I think the reason is eye-bleedingly obvious.

 

[primitivefuture]

Hutcheson lived briefly in the West Memphis neighborhood among the victim's families, then moved a couple of miles away about a month before the murders to Highland trailer park where Misskelley lived.

Bolden said Hutcheson often told customers in her photography studio that Aaron was in the woods that night off Interstate 40.

I wonder what other details she discussed and with whom? Her neighbors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

.. because I think the reason is eye-bleedingly obvious.

Because you'd rather believe elaborate stories of police coercion from Vicky "I lied, instead of trusting in God... I was raised in a Pentecostal home and I knew to do right" Hutcheson's recantation which she chickened out of testifying to than acknowledge any possibility that Crow knew what she'd testify to back at the trial because Misskelley told him about what she'd seen?

I wonder what other details she discussed and with whom?

Well one can always ignore what's evidenced by wondering around it.

 

[Ausgirl]

There ya go again, kyle -- putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. So what you're actually --doing-- is arguing with yourself, using my forum ID as a handpuppet.

Lol.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The main point for me here is that the sum total amounts to:

"Damien Echols said something incriminating (but we don't know exactly what) to somebody (but we can't be sure of exactly to whom)."

And that's just shoddy. Really shoddy evidence.

It is horrible that this was taken seriously at all. It just goes to show that the investigators were determined to make Echols fit into the guilty box no matter what the truth was.. OMO

 

[kyleb]

There ya go again, kyle -- putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head.

I've put no words in your mouth and most certainly bear no responsibility for the thoughts in your head, but as long as you leave me to guess at your reasoning then that's the best I can do.

 

[primitivefuture]

MR. FOGLEMAN: In this particular case the defendant in his confession talked about this cult activity. We contend that the proof is going to show that within maybe a couple weeks after the murders she got Jessie to introduce her to Damien, and Damien invited her to an Esbat, some kind of witch or satan worship deal. Damien and Jessie took her there.
And while there she observed the kids. Some of them have their faces painted black, they begin to have sex. She asked to leave and Damien took her home and Jessie stayed.

Fogelman told the court what Vicki was going to say. My phone autocorrected his name to "Fogey Man". Her whole story back then was absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

Fogleman simply elaborated on what Crow already said:

MR. CROW: I may be anticipating what they are going to try to elicit from this witness but I anticipate she’s going to testify that she saw him at some alleged cult meeting after the murders. If she wants to testify that she saw him with Damien, that’s fine, but all this cult stuff - - I don’t think there’s been a proper foundation laid for it. It is prejudicial and we would strongly object.
THE COURT: After - - is that what you’re going to do - -
MR. FOGLEMAN: Between the murders and the arrests.
THE COURT: But after the event.
MR. FOGLEMAN: That’s correct.
MR. STIDHAM: Just because he was somewhere drinking and carrying on with somebody doesn’t mean he’s satanic - -
(p. 961)
THE COURT: I’m reminded of the Strobbe objection, the first trial - - it wasn’t Strobbe - - it was the biscuit man - - where y’all persuaded me to let in some evidence that happened after the time of the charge that indicated either criminal activity or wrongdoing and the Court said you couldn’t do that - - the Ridling trial. Is there any difference in what you’re trying to do here?
MR. FOGLEMAN: In this particular case the defendant in his confession talked about this cult activity...

Arguing to the contrary is absurd.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Id like to see ANY real evidence that points to Echols as the killer. This case is a circus and The prosecutor should be ashamed and embarrassed.

 

[kyleb]

Well I've been at a loss as to what you'd consider real evidence since back when [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9563357#post9563357"]you contented[/ame] "In fact, There were more people raised from the dead then just Lazarus and Jesus" in defense of Echols' notions that he would do the same. But perhaps if you elaborate on what you consider evidence to support that claim of fact I might then understand how to explain the evidence which proves who committed the murders in such terms.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well I've been at a loss as to what you'd consider real evidence since back when you contented "In fact, There were more people raised from the dead then just Lazarus and Jesus" in defense of Echols' notions that he would do the same. But perhaps if you elaborate on what you consider evidence to support that claim of fact I might then understand how to explain the evidence which proves who committed the murders in such terms.

That is because there were more raised from the dead than just Lazarus and Jesus. I have no doubt that Echols will not be the next one but I chalk that off to what it was, A punk kid trying to get noticed. Someone who felt powerless trying to be powerful and yet still failing.
Having raised a teen who is normal, They are all weird to some extent and like attention.. They will try to get it in odd ways.

 

[kyleb]

That is because there were more raised from the dead than just Lazarus and Jesus.

Based on what evidence do you make this claim of ever anyone rising from the dead, Jesus, Lazarus, or otherwise? Again, I've no clue how to go about showing you evidence prove who committed the murders until I understand what you consider real evidence to be regarding your own claims of fact.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Based on what evidence do you make this claim of ever anyone rising from the dead, Jesus, Lazarus, or otherwise? Again, I've no clue how to go about showing you evidence prove who committed the murders until I understand what you consider real evidence to be regarding your own claims of fact.

I am not going to get into a theological debate but it is in the Bible. Whether you want to believe that or not is your choice, but in the comment that Lazarus and Jesus were the two raised from the dead, That is just not true going by the bible. There were others.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

That was an awesome find Kyleb. Lots of things went on behind the scenes and if you hadn't did all the work to find that information we would never had known about it. That was excellent.

:yourock:

 

[kyleb]

I am not going to get into a theological debate but it is in the Bible.

I'm not looking for any theological discussion and if you'd claimed a position of faith I'd not have questioned it, but again you claimed people having risen from the dead as fact, so again I'm left to wonder what you consider real evidence prove that claim. Is it that you're of the opinion that faith makes fact?

That was an awesome find Kyleb.

It's not really a find, it's from the first conversation Scarlett and I had, and I've been trying to figure out her standards of evidence ever since.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Moving on.....

The problem with a lot of the statements that were given is that they just don't make sense. When I read all of Misskelleys statements that were just wrong, And eye witness accounts that have fallen apart, I wonder where the real evidence is in this case that they used to convict them. I think that if you put a jury up today with the same evidence, they all walk free.

 

[Ausgirl]

Speaking of things that don't make sense.. I am still not real sure what was happening over there at Stone Hinge, all that biting on peters and whatnot. But clearly this guy thinks Davien Baldwin is of the devil - just like his name:

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

 

[primitivefuture]

Speaking of things that don't make sense.. I am still not real sure what was happening over there at Stone Hinge, all that biting on peters and whatnot. But clearly this guy thinks Davien Baldwin is of the devil - just like his name:

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

Bly: Uh, it would take me a while to remember it I was married to my wife for months before i could remember her name

By far the most credible witness involved in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

Speaking of things that don't make sense.. I am still not real sure what was happening over there at Stone Hinge, all that biting on peters and whatnot. But clearly this guy thinks Davien Baldwin is of the devil - just like his name:

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

I start to re-read that statement and just couldn't get much past that. Got as far as him saying "He's the leader, Misskelley is" and I just quit reading it again. Misskelley is about as far from a leader of anything as one can get IMO.

 

[reedus23]

So, can anyone provide an explanation for how Crow could've accurately predicted Hutcheson's testimony without Misskelley telling him what she saw?

Seriously? I have a pretty damn good idea what every witness is going to testify to before every trial. In fact, it's taught that if you don't already know the answer, don't ask the question. The BS Hutcheson was spouting, along with the rest of the community, was no hidden secret. Any lawyer with half a brain would have known what she was going to say before she said it. If you want to think it's because his client filled him in on the details, feel free to continue wearing the blinders.