Damien Echols' occult motives

[Cappuccino]

Rather, you're disregarding an actual example of accurate results and frivolously accusing James Kenny Martin of involvement in the murders, in denial of the evidence which crossed everyone off the list aside from the three who were convicted of and eventually plead guilty to the murders.

No, I'm not. I deliberately didn't mention Martin's name, because while he did make a genuinely incriminating statement, I don't regard that alone as enough to accuse him. He is, however, an example of how that technique can produce evidence that a suspect has knowledge of the crime.

Airy fairy nonsense about what imaginary Satanists believe in horror movies is not knowledge of the crime. Its knowledge of the contents of a few bad movies.

The "evidence" that crossed Martin off the list was his wife providing him with an alibi.

 

[Ina Cognito]

The same way I know Echols lived in West Memphis at the time of the murders, because I prefer to familiarize myself with the evidence regarding such matters rather than wallow in denial of it.

Are you capable of having a discussion without this condescending, arrogant attitude of yours?

You missed my point entirely. You can read all of the evidence a million times over, look at every photograph till your eyes cross.... that does not mean you know Damian Echols nor knew him at 18 years of age.

I'm done communicating with you.

 

[gheckso]

OT:
Martin also thought the father of Steve branch was the killer, I would of thought a statement like that would have been scrutinized further.

 

[Ina Cognito]

OT:
Martin also thought the father of Steve branch was the killer, I would of thought a statement like that would have been scrutinized further.

That is pretty dang weird isn't it? Called him the father of rather than by his name...wonder what that means?

 

[Ausgirl]

Hard core bible bashers consider abortion and homosexuality to be sinful and, in the most extreme cases, punishable by death.

Goths, heavy metal fans, Wiccans and Satanists do not consider children to be sinful and punishable by death.

See the difference?

^ precisely.

In my personal experience (and during a former and somewhat more interesting portion of my life) I had occasion to spend a few days in the company of the highest ranking members of the Satanic Church in this country.

They were actually really nice people. As hard as that might be for some to comprehend, they really were decent folks living decent lives. Harm toward an innocent is every bit as appalling to them as it is for every other decent person.

So I do know, for a fact, that murder isn't part of the core Satanic belief, as far as organised religion goes. Of course, I cannot speak for random nutters who identify with it, any more than I can for mentally ill Christians who bomb abortion clinics and other deluded persons who kill in the name of God.

Just FYI, and a bit OT, sorry.

 

[Ausgirl]

Moving a discussion regarding Aleister Crowley and child sacrifice here, from another thread, so as to keep things a bit more on-topic..


Okay. So, as to Crowley advocating child sacrifice -- it's a myth. And this has been expounded upon by many great occultists, and is generally taken as fact among them.

The passage most often quoted as 'proof' of Crowley's being a child killer is this, from 'Magick in Theory and Practise":

“For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.”

Crowley himself wrote as a footnote to this: "the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result."

By which he meant the act of masturbation.

Many of Crowley's books had, prior to 'Magick' being published, been pulled from shelves due to his references to masturbation and other sex acts. So, being a bit of a smart alec, he took to veiling these references heavily in absolutely appalling terms that were, quite hypocritically, able to get past the very strict moral police of the time, as they 'only' referred to murder, and this is how Crowley's sense of humour worked.

He also, in his diaries, claimed to have performed this “sacrifice” about 150 times per year from 1912-1928.

So Crowley was either the world's most prolific serial killer -- or just a terrible tosser.

 

[reedus23]

Moving a discussion regarding Aleister Crowley and child sacrifice here, from another thread, so as to keep things a bit more on-topic..


Okay. So, as to Crowley advocating child sacrifice -- it's a myth. And this has been expounded upon by many great occultists, and is generally taken as fact among them.

The passage most often quoted as 'proof' of Crowley's being a child killer is this, from 'Magick in Theory and Practise":

“For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.”

Crowley himself wrote as a footnote to this: "the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result."

By which he meant the act of masturbation.

Many of Crowley's books had, prior to 'Magick' being published, been pulled from shelves due to his references to masturbation and other sex acts. So, being a bit of a smart alec, he took to veiling these references heavily in absolutely appalling terms that were, quite hypocritically, able to get past the very strict moral police of the time, as they 'only' referred to murder, and this is how Crowley's sense of humour worked.

He also, in his diaries, claimed to have performed this “sacrifice” about 150 times per year from 1912-1928.

So Crowley was either the world's most prolific serial killer -- or just a terrible tosser.

Crowley and anything related to such beliefs was only used to impassion and frighten the jury. None of that evidence was offered because it had a legitimate relationship to these crimes. The prosecution simply had nothing else to go with so they went with satanic panic.

 

[Ina Cognito]

Moving a discussion regarding Aleister Crowley and child sacrifice here, from another thread, so as to keep things a bit more on-topic..


Okay. So, as to Crowley advocating child sacrifice -- it's a myth. And this has been expounded upon by many great occultists, and is generally taken as fact among them.

The passage most often quoted as 'proof' of Crowley's being a child killer is this, from 'Magick in Theory and Practise":

“For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.”

Crowley himself wrote as a footnote to this: "the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result."

By which he meant the act of masturbation.

Many of Crowley's books had, prior to 'Magick' being published, been pulled from shelves due to his references to masturbation and other sex acts. So, being a bit of a smart alec, he took to veiling these references heavily in absolutely appalling terms that were, quite hypocritically, able to get past the very strict moral police of the time, as they 'only' referred to murder, and this is how Crowley's sense of humour worked.

He also, in his diaries, claimed to have performed this “sacrifice” about 150 times per year from 1912-1928.

So Crowley was either the world's most prolific serial killer -- or just a terrible tosser.

Thank you Ausgirl, that's very interesting lol

 

[Ina Cognito]

Crowley and anything related to such beliefs was only used to impassion and frighten the jury. None of that evidence was offered because it had a legitimate relationship to these crimes. The prosecution simply had nothing else to go with so they went with satanic panic.

My ultimate disappointment in this whole fiasco was the defense. I mean even though, at the time, the country was locked up in this crazy satanist paranoia why didn't the defense do a better job of trying to explain it away? If this case were retried today, in present time, a defense team would have the gallery laughing the prosecution out of the courtroom. IMO and my view the investigators on this case were so misguided from hour 1 after finding the victims. What specifically got the "this was a satanic sacrifice" in their minds originally we will probably never know. I imagine it was one person ultimately that saw the scene and boys and just made that jump and it spread throughout the investigation. Then, instead of the investigators following the actual evidence etc they followed a diverted path of "who around here seems like they worship Satan that would murder 3 children?" This diverted path resulted in a list basically of Juveniles that ended up being brought in for questioning and the rest is history...

 

[kyleb]

Crowley himself wrote as a footnote to this: "the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result."

Those aren't Crowley's words. Can you name the women who actually did write what you quoted there?

 

[Ausgirl]

Those aren't Crowley's words. Can you name the women who actually did write what you quoted there?

Actually, no I don't - please do tell me. I do like learning things.

Now quid pro quo - do you think Crowley was a Satanic child killer? And do you think he really did sacrifice 150 boys a year for more than a decade?

 

[Ausgirl]

My ultimate disappointment in this whole fiasco was the defense. I mean even though, at the time, the country was locked up in this crazy satanist paranoia why didn't the defense do a better job of trying to explain it away? If this case were retried today, in present time, a defense team would have the gallery laughing the prosecution out of the courtroom. IMO and my view the investigators on this case were so misguided from hour 1 after finding the victims. What specifically got the "this was a satanic sacrifice" in their minds originally we will probably never know. I imagine it was one person ultimately that saw the scene and boys and just made that jump and it spread throughout the investigation. Then, instead of the investigators following the actual evidence etc they followed a diverted path of "who around here seems like they worship Satan that would murder 3 children?" This diverted path resulted in a list basically of Juveniles that ended up being brought in for questioning and the rest is history...

While I generally agree with you, and with reedus, there's a couple of thoughts in addition to that I'd like to put forward:

- I believe there was an existing concern regarding the presence of Satanic cults in the area, probably fuelled by the 'panic' described above, and as these murders were really very eerie and bizarre, I can see where the belief they were ritually motivated came from, and why it was a conclusion arrived at fairly swiftly.

- IMO, there's no surprise that kids in a restrictive social environment will lash against the prevailing system by doing the exact opposite of what desired behaviour is generally meant to be, so in an intense Christian environment, maximum rebellion is to paint inverted pentagrams everywhere and listen to heavy metal.

- It's very telling that the FBI stated they had not seen a single Satanic ritual murder, ever. I rather think that truly dedicated minions of Hell might do more than graffiti and setting fire to the odd cat.

 

[kyleb]

Actually, no I don't - please do tell me. I do like learning things.

Please look toward the end of the paragraph of the footnote you quoted from, and there you'll find a pseudonym of the women identified as having wrote what you quoted. In the spirit of quid pro quo, you give me that, and I'll give you her name.

do you think Crowley was a Satanic child killer?

I've seen no evidence to suggest Crowley ever killed anyone, child or otherwise.

 

[Ausgirl]

Nah, it's all good. We agree that Crowley wasn't a child killer, and thus all is well and sunshiney on that point.

I think hes not very relevant to this case, anyway, but I think he's an interesting peripheral subject, just for the fact that he's mentioned so often in the whole Satanic panic furore while not actually being a Satanist himself, and is so often misrespresented due to that one quote.

 

[Ina Cognito]

While I generally agree with you, and with reedus, there's a couple of thoughts in addition to that I'd like to put forward:

- I believe there was an existing concern regarding the presence of Satanic cults in the area, probably fuelled by the 'panic' described above, and as these murders were really very eerie and bizarre, I can see where the belief they were ritually motivated came from, and why it was a conclusion arrived at fairly swiftly.

- IMO, there's no surprise that kids in a restrictive social environment will lash against the prevailing system by doing the exact opposite of what desired behaviour is generally meant to be, so in an intense Christian environment, maximum rebellion is to paint inverted pentagrams everywhere and listen to heavy metal.

- It's very telling that the FBI stated they had not seen a single Satanic ritual murder, ever. I rather think that truly dedicated minions of Hell might do more than graffiti and setting fire to the odd cat.

Yes, also good to add.

 

[kyleb]

We agree that Crowley wasn't a child killer

No we don't agree, as don't presume upon myself the ability divine what others aren't or weren't, and rather stick to what I've seen them evidenced to be.

I think hes not very relevant to this case

On this we do agree, though I don't agree with your attempt to argue around what relevance to this case Crowley does have by falsely attributing another person's words to him rather that discussing what was actually said regarding him at Echols' trial.

 

[Ausgirl]

kyleb, we shall just have to agree to disgree, then. Unless you disagree. In which case, I shall be agreeable only to myself, but such is life.

 

[reedus23]

I think hes not very relevant to this case,

Shouldn't be. I agree. Reality though was that he was a part of the prosecution building up that fear in the jury. Whether he was rightfully or wrongfully depicted to the jury wasn't of concern to the prosecution. Their concern was in getting a conviction and along those lines was going to use what they could to get it and in this instance, that included creating and giving legitimacy to this panic.

 

[Ina Cognito]

On this we do agree, though I don't agree with your attempt to argue around what relevance to this case Crowley does have by falsely attributing another person's words to him rather that discussing what was actually said regarding him at Echols' trial.

I'm sorry but that's kind of low to basically accuse Ausgirl of making something up or deliberately being misleading when the quote has been often attributed to Crowley, was basically a paraphrasing of what he originally wrote and I believe ( I could be wrong because I don't read Crowley's works and have no desire to) he may have substituted the wording as the follower who offered it suggested.... It was pretty obvious when looking up the passage why Ausgirl made the reference she did and "to be deceptive" was not what it was. :snooty:

 

[kyleb]

I'm sorry but that's kind of low to basically accuse Ausgirl of making something up or deliberately being misleading

Yet I don't imagine Ausgirl did either, let alone did I suggest anything of the sort, and rather simply stated my disagreement with what she actually did.

when the quote has been often attributed to Crowley

Where exactly can one find any other examples of Martha Küntzel words being falsely attributed to Crowley as Ausgirl did? As someone who has read much both from and about Crowley over my years, since before these murders even took place, this is the first such instance of such I've seen.

It was pretty obvious when looking up the passage why Ausgirl made the reference she did and "to be deceptive" was not what it was.

I can't say for certain it wasn't, but I figure it far more likely it was because she feels compelled to be deceived, as the paragraph from the footnote in Of the Bloody Sacrifice and Matters Cognate makes it plainly obvious to anyone who wants to know the truth that the words Ausgirl mistook for Crowley's are not his:

"It is the sacrifice of oneself spiritually. And the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result. And male he must be, because what he sacrifices is not the material blood, but his creative power." This initiated interpretation of the texts was sent spontaneously by Soror I.W.E., for the sake of the younger Brethren.

And the fact that Soror I.W.E. is Sister I Want It isn't rightly any occult mystery either. But again I'm not accusing anybody here of intending to deceive anyone, I simply don't agree with anyone's lack of interest in the truth, be it what Crowley actually wrote about human sacrifice and its relevance to this case or any other mater in which so many seem to prefer to be deceived.