I'm carrying a couple quotes over from the [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211742"]Common Ground[/ame] thread since this is a disputed issue. To start: No, even if Griffis had got up on the stand and shook his arms like a chicken while barking like a dog, that would've had no bearing on Echols' motives in committing the murders. That said, Echols was by far a better witness regarding his occult influenced motives than Griffs was, though of course Echols spoke in third person when referring to who committed the murders. Notably: Granted, the prosecution couldn't predict what Echols would say, and hence were left to find a witness on their own, and Griffis was apparently the best they could do. Furthermore, Exhibit 500 and Echols' letters to Gloria Shettles speak volumes regarding Echols occult motives, but of coarse neither of those were available to the prosecution for the trial, so the they were left to make due with what they could get. If some KKK type were on trial for murdering a black person, would you consider it religious discrimination to call witness to testify regarding religious beliefs such as supposed "curse of Cain"? [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain"]Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] I contend that ideology is often a notable factor in motives, be such ideologies secular or otherwise. To consider some ideologies off-limits when addressing the issue of motive, simply because they are religious in nature, would be unequal treatment under the law.