48 Hours and Paradise Lost; West Memphis Three

[UdbCrzy2]

Wow Kyle, you always amaze me

 

[gheckso]

BBM

I guess it did backfire on him by acting like that. He kind of made his own little karma. But, what gets me is why he is going after Hobbs when he knows better. The other parents are not doing that, even Pam Hobbs/Hicks.

when he knows better? I'm sorry I don't understand the reasoning here.

JMB believes TH is involved based on the evidence he has seen but he should just not worry about it because heck, this has happened to me.

What I do find interesting about the latest accusations is that we have a TH's family member pointing the finger at another party than DJ&J, I wonder if this belief extends to the others?

So is this person now a "supporter"

 

[Ausgirl]

A bit off topic - but those quotes from Kinsey made me feel physically sick.

Thanks for the post, however, kyle, and for that doco link - I have never seen that one. I'll watch it when I feel able to.. /shudder

 

[kyleb]

I share that revulsion for the notions expressed by Kinsey, but he shrugged off such feelings of others with the motto "Do your best, and let other people react as they will" as noted by his colleague Wardell Baxter Pomeroy, and of course Kinsey was backed by Rockefeller Foundation and remains well respect by a notable faction of our establishment. Also, some might recognize Kinsey's motto as variation of one from the man pictured between Kinsey and Kenneth Anger in this old photograph:

That was taken at the Abbey of Thelema in 1955, where Kinsey and Anger traveled and found as Pomeroy reports:

The Great Beast and his followers were against any kind of religion, in any form, expect their own. They held group orgies as part of their ritual, and included in them the small children the women had brought with them. The disciples were so completely under the domination of Crowley that when they displeased him, he would command them to strip off their clothing and climb over the rugged hillside to a cave where they would live until he deigned to let them come back.

...One door in the house had painted on it six scenes of Tibetan temples and the Himalaya Mountains, recalling Crowley's legendary criminalizing exploits there, which Kinsey doubted had ever occurred. The remainder of the paintings were life-sized representations of sexual activity, both homosexual and heterosexual, singly, doubly and in groups, including children.

And yes I've been straying quite a ways from the topic of the murders, but contend that such contextual information is important to understanding this case. That said, getting back towards the focus of this forum and more recent times, I recommend the Australian 60 Minutes episode titled Witness for Mr. Bubbles, regarding another defender of pedophiles named Ralph Underwager:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujjFqXijPd4"]Ralph Underwager: 'Witness for Mr Bubbles' - YouTube[/ame]

Granted, Underwager wasn't directly involved in this case either, but he was an associate of a man who has played a key role. Can any of the sleuths here find that connection?

 

[Ausgirl]

... aaand there's the other boot.

There were no child sacrifices, kyle, was my ONLY point, where this case and Crowley were concerned. Thanks anyway, it's all interesting stuff.

I note, though, the dearth of reference to comments Crowley made regarding his abhorrence of child cruelty.

I'm sure it's just an oversight.

 

[kyleb]

As I've I've said previously, I've not seen any evidence that Crowley ever killed anyone, child or otherwise. He obviously didn't consider murder beyond the pale though, as evidenced by his commentaries on his The Book of the Law:

Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians?

Anyway, one can focus solely on the good characteristics of a person, but one can't rightly understand them by doing so, be it Crowley, Kinsey, or otherwise.

 

[Ausgirl]

Wasn't eugenics popular among a lot of people in that time? As it is today, among members of the religious far right..

I am not making excuses for what is clearly abhorrent behaviour from ANY quarter - just kind of wondering what, exactly, the point and relevance of all this is in relation to this case.

 

[kyleb]

The Friedmens, Kinsey, Crowley, and Underwager all serve to provide context to the fact that what many of us consider clearly abhorrent behavior is deemed otherwise by some, including a powerful faction of our establishment which promotes such individuals' more appealing characteristics while obscuring their darker sides.

 

[Ausgirl]

And who is doing that, kyle? Or is this another amorphous blob of nameless faceless 'they's?

Mother Theresa happily took money from a Haitian despot famed for murdering his own people, who lived in opulence while the poor around him literally died in droves of starvation, among other atrocities.

The -bible- admires people who rape virgins and murder kids, and extolls the slaughter of people in their thousands. Maybe Echols read that too!

There's litanies and litanies of examples where the good side is focussed on, over the bad, where it doesn't suit to have a balanced view or admit fault.

.. Crowley, in my own case, is not one of those. And Kinsey deserved some sort of biblical wrath, for sure.

 

[kyleb]

Have I been mistaken for a Christian here, or a Christian apologist? Regardless, I'm nothing of the sort. As to the matter of they, for one the Rockefeller Foundation thought Kinsey deserved massive funding rather than wrath, and of course the backers of the others I've mentioned have been noted throughout this thread, aside from Underwager that is, but I plan to get to that if nobody else cares to sleuth it down.

 

[Ausgirl]

Ah well, we both agree that Kinsey was a monster, Crowley was a cad, and people can be stupidly one-eyed when it suits them.

Back on topic more specifically, however - I too get a bit annoyed by the sainting of the WM3. I am not sure they are murderers, but they certainly all had their share of bad behaviour - Echols, in particular.

 

[claudicici]

Also, at the end of the letter they mention HBO's other production in defense of child predators, Capturing the Friedmans which was also nominated for an Oscar. That movie is a romanticized story which paints a father and son duo of confessed child rapists as innocent victims of a moral panic, but which a recent judicial review proved otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt.

OT,but have you seen this documentary? It totally is not what you say it is IMO.It paints a compelling picture about how the actions of this man not only victimized innocent children but how he tore his own family apart,how his sons and brother believed in him even though they were victims themselves and how he turned them against their mother.The documentary itself makes no judgment about his guilt or innocence ,it leaves it up to the viewer to use their own critical thinking and I don't think anyone who watches it would think that man is innocent in the end.Some of the charges were exagerated for sure IMO but guilty he was.

 

[Ausgirl]

Since I'm out of CSI episodes I might watch that doco tonight.

I watched the Kinsey one for 10 mins and x'd it. Just not up to dealing with that today.. Reminds me of all the sick things done to psych patients in those days too, in the name of 'science'..

 

[kyleb]

have you seen this documentary? It totally is not what you say it is IMO.

I've watched Capturing the Friedmans, but I've also familiarized myself with the evidence which the director distorted and omitted to rob viewers of the means to use their own critical thinking, giving the issue of Jesse Friedman's guilt the appearance of a matter of opinion rather than acknowledging it as fact, that director being Andrew Jarecki whose long been working to overturn Jesse Friedman's conviction. Also, being familiar with the evidence which proves both the Friedman's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, I refuse to call the movie which portrays otherwise a documentary, and much the same goes for the Paradise Lost series and West of Memphis.

 

[kyleb]

The -bible- admires people who rape virgins and murder kids, and extolls the slaughter of people in their thousands. Maybe Echols read that too!

By the way, Echols apparently did read the Bible, as according Ridge's 5/10/93 interview report "Damien stated that his favorite book of the Bible was that of Revelations because of the stories in it about what was being done by the devil and the suffering done by people at the hands of the devil." On the other hand, my own opinion of Revelation concurs with that of Thomas Jefferon who declared it "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams", though from that perspective I can understand how the book appealed to Echols.

 

[Ausgirl]

Another thing we concur on!

This is getting to be habit, kyle.

In all seriousness, I do agree with you for the most part that Echols was not anyplace near a healthy state of mind, and his serious threats and violent behaviour toward others as well as his goofing around in a -murder trial- starring himself - well, all of it speaks to a lad who WAS a good call as a suspect in my mind.

But is he guilty of murdering Michael, Christopher and Steve? That's where I am undecided, unconvinced. Because there's just not enough evidence for me to leap easily into one camp or another, and what evidence there is is poor, or too equivocal, or tainted, or lost, or -whatever- makes it unconvincing and/or deeply flawed. Certainly his choice of reading material isn't the biggest issue in my sights, however.

I do agree with you on the uselessness of denying he was a violent little sod, though.

eta: as well that as the PL docos were rather whitewashed in places.

 

[kyleb]

I do agree with you on the uselessness of denying he was a violent little sod, though.

Such omissions, distortions, and denials have a purpose, which they are used throughout the PL movies and WoM in regard to far more than just Echols history of violence prior to committing the murders. Again, that's why I refer back to Echols lies regarding where he lived at the time of the murders, because those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence which proves that simple and well documented fact beyond any reasonable doubt aren't rightly in any position to access the evidence which proves he committed the murders along with Baldwin and Misskelley. One might just as well attempt to explain the fossil record and radiocarbon dating to young earth creationists for all the good it could do.

 

[gheckso]

OT: Not sure where all the Bible bashing is coming from, I'm not Religous myself but c'mon.
Besides, radio carbon dating is still being fine tuned to this day to try and reflect conditions as they would have been at the time, albeit quite accurate as I'm led to believe to roughly 50000 years.
Not all religious folk believe the earth was created ~6000 years ago. And I'm not suggesting you said they do.

Wow, off topic much. Sorry

 

[Ausgirl]

Yeah - I apologise for that. Trying to make a point, and doing it poorly.

claudicici, sorry too for not thanking YOU for the link! clearly, I am not functioning at my sharpest this evening. So -- thanks!

 

[LordYAM]

Okay kyle, even if you are right about the address that doesn't mean you are right. I could say that your refusal to acknowledge basic fact such as that the "knife wounds" are animal predation (I'm sorry but the people who made that call are trained a team of highly certified experts while the one who thought they were knife marks isn't qualified in the least) means that aren't in any position to access he Baldwin and miskelley didn't commit the murders.