Damien Echols' occult motives

[reedus23]

This is an interesting side of the debate on, but I really don't think there actually was much of a motive in this case .. I think Damien at the time was interested in alternative religions, just as he seems to be now.

IMO there was no planning here, whatsoever. The 3 older boys were drinking in the woods and by chance the three younger boys entered the area, and then the attack began, sort of like an act of bullying with Damien and Jason each outdoing the other which tragically leads to the murder of all three.

I think there's a difference between someone in a 'hate gang' for instance going out and seeking a target for their misguided rage, or perhaps setting upon someone they were already felt a racist hatred for, and this crime .. however I understand the parallel of vulnerable victims.

I'm sure there was a feeling of power and dominance gained simply by being able to commit the act, and by doing it in front of others. I also think that's part of the reason Damien talked about it afterwards, it added to his cache for want of a better word, or so he thought.

He may have even tried to frame the act in his own mind to give it deeper meaning for his own benefit, but I really don't believe this crime had much sense to it at all, in the same way I don't believe school shootings make much sense. I view them similarly.

Having said that, I can see Damien adding value and power to the act post crime, especially in discussions with Jason.

MGN...I have to say, even though I don't think there was enough evidence to establish their guilt, if I were asked to describe a scenario in which the WM3 did commit the murders, it would probably closely follow what you have laid out. I think it would have been a crime of opportunity. In other words, it was not planned out beforehand. The WM3 were there, the 3 boys happened to come along and the opportunity arose. Any motivation came from the desire to exercise power over another, not some mystical, hocus pocus belief that power was going to be gained by doing it.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

MGN...I have to say, even though I don't think there was enough evidence to establish their guilt, if I were asked to describe a scenario in which the WM3 did commit the murders, it would probably closely follow what you have laid out. I think it would have been a crime of opportunity. In other words, it was not planned out beforehand. The WM3 were there, the 3 boys happened to come along and the opportunity arose. Any motivation came from the desire to exercise power over another, not some mystical, hocus pocus belief that power was going to be gained by doing it.

You know what .. I rather like the way these threads are going now .. at least we are able to discuss things in a hypothetical way and pool our combined knowledge, let's face it, we've all been here for ages following this one, and even though we might not agree with each other at least we can step back a bit every now again again and just say 'if this, then this' and 'if not this, then this' etc .. I like it

 

[kyleb]

are you saying you believe Damien committed the murders because he thought he would gain some sort of powers from killing the kids or from drinking their blood? You are not saying Damien killed the kids because he was trying to exert power/control over another life. Do I have that right?

You have a false dichotomy, while I make a conscious effort to avoid such things.

 

[kyleb]

Considering Berlinger and Sinofsky likely engaged in a lot of selective editing to create their movies and are aware of more than we are I even wonder how convinced they actually are .. at the end of the day they found an audience, which translated into $$$ .. colour me cynical.

I see no reason to be so cynical, and rather agree with Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's suggestion that:

misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.

Of course all filmmakers engage in selective editing, and Berlinger and Sinofsky have been very selective in what evidence they've bother to present, but I see no reason to assume they've intended to mislead anyone by doing so. Rather, I figure they simply don't understand how to eventuate evidence, and have neglected the importance of leaving such matters to people who do.

 

[Miranda!]

Rather, I figure they simply don't understand how to eventuate evidence, and have neglected the importance of leaving such matters to people who do.

And yet, had they not filmed the trials and everything else then the three would still be incarcerated and Echols most likely dead by now. Furthermore if only those people who have had the legal training and experience were able to question legal matters then why the hell is this board here? All those boards specifically dedicated to this case? And what are you doing here?

Something tells me that your disdain is based on the fact that thier opinions differ from yours.

If your take on the case is the correct one then do you think it is in order that the State of Arkansas released three young men out into the world? And one of them off of Death Row to boot? And that the Alford Plea was utilised post conviction rather than as a tool to gain a conviction and save money by not having to go to trial?

And should you, perchance, have the legal training along with a law degree entitling you to your opinions could you maybe tell us how many times this 'Alford Plea' has been used, post conviction, in order for a state to save face?

We know that 'money talks' and I can only think that Hollywood money from deep pockets talks even louder - enough to embarass a state into manipulating the 'law' in a rather odd and obscure way to get them, the state, out from between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Dale Griffis' testimony
In camera hearing: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/dgriffis.html
Open court: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/dale_griffis.html

It gets worse the more often you read it.

 

[Miranda!]

Dale Griffis' testimony - It gets worse the more often you read it.

Then maybe stop reading it?

Although Judge Burnett allowed him to testify as an 'expert witness'' he is just some weirdo who tried to cash in on the whole 'satanic panic' wave. He had no academic qualifications in that field what so ever. Any person, with the mind set to con gullible people, can buy an off the peg PhD off the internet now - back then I guess he had to write a cheque and post it in the old fashioned way!

The fact that he was allowed to 'testify' reflects very badly on both the lead prosecutor Davies as well as Judge Burnett. Either theyb are both 'fools' or, even worse, thought the jury members were so ignorant that they would be blinded by this 'science'.

I think so called 'christian churches' whose congregations are swept into a frenzy of mass hysteria so that they babble mindlessly or play with venomous snakes is much more satanic than holistic healing traditions like Reiki!

I guess in your world people with 'green fingers' or 'healing hands' are devil worshipers too? Reiki uses the same basic principles that are a part of the Chinese art of acupuncture.

Whether Echols has healing abilities I do not know nor care. What I do know is that the acupuncture points have now been verified by Kurlian photography. Also I have had treatments given by my GP here in the UK and on The National Health. And I have gone back for more, which as someone who is needle phobic has to give pause for thought!

Hollistic Medicine should be respected - all it means is treating the 'whole person' rather than just the symptim. Imagine someone who breaks an arm, gets it fixed and then breaks a leg, gets that fixed etcetera...when the root cause is that their ability to balance properly is impaired, hence they keep falling. Treat the overall problem that is causing them to keep falling over and you have no more broken bones! It might be a vison problem, inner ear infection or even a brain tumour - but just treat individual broken bones and bruises is not going to cure them. That is, of course, a gross over simplification, but it serves the purpose intended here!

There are always extremists in any group of people with a common core belief. Just take a look at the world around us and how the extremists in the major religions are the root cause of a lot of the planet's current problems! And the main ones even all have much of the OT in common.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Then maybe stop reading it?

Although Judge Burnett allowed him to testify as an 'expert witness'' he is just some weirdo who tried to cash in on the whole 'satanic panic' wave. He had no academic qualifications in that field what so ever. Any person, with the mind set to con gullible people, can buy an off the peg PhD off the internet now - back then I guess he had to write a cheque and post it in the old fashioned way!

The fact that he was allowed to 'testify' reflects very badly on both the lead prosecutor Davies as well as Judge Burnett. Either theyb are both 'fools' or, even worse, thought the jury members were so ignorant that they would be blinded by this 'science'.

I think so called 'christian churches' whose congregations are swept into a frenzy of mass hysteria so that they babble mindlessly or play with venomous snakes is much more satanic than holistic healing traditions like Reiki!

I guess in your world people with 'green fingers' or 'healing hands' are devil worshipers too? Reiki uses the same basic principles that are a part of the Chinese art of acupuncture.

Whether Echols has healing abilities I do not know nor care. What I do know is that the acupuncture points have now been verified by Kurlian photography. Also I have had treatments given by my GP here in the UK and on The National Health. And I have gone back for more, which as someone who is needle phobic has to give pause for thought!

Hollistic Medicine should be respected - all it means is treating the 'whole person' rather than just the symptim. Imagine someone who breaks an arm, gets it fixed and then breaks a leg, gets that fixed etcetera...when the root cause is that their ability to balance properly is impaired, hence they keep falling. Treat the overall problem that is causing them to keep falling over and you have no more broken bones! It might be a vison problem, inner ear infection or even a brain tumour - but just treat individual broken bones and bruises is not going to cure them. That is, of course, a gross over simplification, but it serves the purpose intended here!

There are always extremists in any group of people with a common core belief. Just take a look at the world around us and how the extremists in the major religions are the root cause of a lot of the planet's current problems! And the main ones even all have much of the OT in common.

By worse I meant more ridiculous.

We'll have to agree to disagree on anything related to new age religion I'm a skeptic and proud of it, I'm also an Atheist for what it's worth.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Back to the Damien's Occult Motives .. would it be possible that someone mentally ill would actually believe in Satanism, I'm sure a mental disturbance could lead to someone finding meaning where it doesn't exist, having unusual thoughts .. drawing parallels where none exist etc. I'm just curious about that, as in how genuine his beliefs were compared to how designed to impress they were?

Since he was suffering from some form of mental illness or disturbance before the crime, could have reading texts on satanism fed into that illness? Just curious about how the interest and illness could interact.

 

[kyleb]

And yet, had they not filmed the trials and everything else then the three would still be incarcerated and Echols most likely dead by now.

Right, the movies are what built the popular support and celebrity funding which resulted in three convicted child murders offering guilty pleas in exchange for time served and ten year suspended sentences. You've got no argument from me there. As for your questions regarding why the state accepted the Alford plea offer, that is wildly off topic in this thread, but feel free to search my posting history for previous discussion of the matter, or you could always start a new thread and I'd be happy to reiterate myself there.

Furthermore if only those people who have had the legal training and experience were able to question legal matters

I've made no such suggestion. Please look back at what I've actually said.

Something tells me that your disdain is based on the fact that thier opinions differ from yours.

Can you be more specific as to what this something you allude to is? By chance could that same something also be what prompted Joe Berlinger's experience which he recounts in this interview:

Before we actually met Damien in person, there was a pre-trial hearing we went to, and we hadn't met Damien before... And then later I sat down and met him, and within five minutes of talking to him, not only did I feel he was innocent, but all that evil that I had projected on him washed away... after I walked away from that first hour-long interview, I was convinced of his innocence.

Certainly something lead Berlinger to imagine he could divine the truth of whether or not Echols committed the murders after an hour of conversation, leaving him no need to dispassionately analyze the evidence presented at the trials, let alone that which has come out since then. Clearly something eased Berlinger from having any qualms in acknowledging the fact that his "film is very subjective."

Further into that interview Berlinger go on to argue "Hopefully what the film is doing, and why I feel OK about the subjectivity, is that we're going for a higher emotional truth" in flagellant contradiction to the meaning of the term documentary which he so often uses to describe his work. Is perhaps that "higher emotional truth" Berlinger refers to the same something you allude to? Perhaps such the "higher emotional truth" motivates Echols' current interest in the sham known as Reiki, and his well documented interest in far darker mumbo jumbo around the time of the murders which Berlinger and Sinofsky completely glossed over in their non-documentaries, as have so many others since then, including yourself in your post here which completely ignores the those very dark occult beliefs of Echols' which are the topic of this very thread?

Dale Griffis' testimony... It gets worse the more often you read it.

Yeah, the ability to evaluate evidence Griffis demonstrated on the stand is around on par with what Berlinger and Sinofsky's demonstrated in their movies, and what so many people demonstrate in arguments both ways on this case and any other notable issue of contention. My father's ability to evaluate evidence isn't much better, and he's got a master's in forensic science from a well respected university. Such is the world we live in, but those issues have no bearing on the facts of these murders, neither Echols' occult motives nor otherwise.

 

[reedus23]

You have a false dichotomy, while I make a conscious effort to avoid such things.

Enlighten me then.

 

[reedus23]

I see no reason to be so cynical, and rather agree with Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's suggestion that:



Of course all filmmakers engage in selective editing, and Berlinger and Sinofsky have been very selective in what evidence they've bother to present, but I see no reason to assume they've intended to mislead anyone by doing so. Rather, I figure they simply don't understand how to eventuate evidence, and have neglected the importance of leaving such matters to people who do.

Don't get so hung up on the documentaries. They're there to grab people's attention. But the documentaries didn't set the WM3 free. The defendants, their attorneys, the State of Arkansas, their attorneys and the Court decided to set them free. The documentaries may have brought attention to the problems with the convictions, but it didn't set them free.

 

[kyleb]

Enlighten me then.

See here:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma"]False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Don't get so hung up on the documentaries.

Please don't imagine I am.

 

[claudicici]

I certainly do share prosecutors Davis and Fogleman's mindset to the extent that they respected the need to examine the evidence of motive along with that of means an opportunity to properly determine who committed the murders. That's said Claudicici, I hope you might take a moment to listen to a song which I doubt Davis or Fogleman would appreciate in the slightest, but which I'm quite fond of myself, and which goes along way in expressing my mindset towards those who are so fond of Echols:

A Perfect Circle - Judith - YouTube

I have yet to understand why a song about Maynard's mother and him being pissed off at the God that she believed in yet he left her paralyzed has anything to do with how you feel about people that support Echols?
As far as this thread is concerned I find it ironic that it's opened by someone who continues to have a circular argument about supporters not having evidence that the WM 3 are not guilty .

 

[reedus23]

See here:

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please don't imagine I am.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. That's not what I was hoping you would enlighten me on. I was hoping you would enlighten me on your position then. I was having a hard time following it. It was me, not you, and I was just asking if you could restate it so maybe I could grasp your point.

 

[kyleb]

As far as this thread is concerned I find it ironic that it's opened by someone who continues to have a circular argument about supporters not having evidence that the WM 3 are not guilty .

My actual argument is that supporters fail to acknowledge the evidence which proves the convicted are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, evidence regarding Echols' very dark occult motives and otherwise. As for the song, I posted it to contest your suggestion that this thread "describes perfectly and accurately the mindset of people that prosecuted Damien", since while I do share their mindset in some regards, I suspect you'd agree they'd not share my fondness for that song but rather consider it downright blasphemous if not outright satanic. As for why I consider that song applicable to those who are so fond of Echols, that's rather irrelevant to the topic of this forum, but I'd be happy to explain in detail through private messaging if you'd like.

 

[reedus23]

My actual argument is that supporters fail to acknowledge the evidence which proves the convicted are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, evidence regarding Echols' very dark occult motives and otherwise. As for the song, I posted it to contest your suggestion that this thread "describes perfectly and accurately the mindset of people that prosecuted Damien", since while I do share their mindset in some regards, I suspect you'd agree they'd not share my fondness for that song but rather consider it downright blasphemous if not outright satanic. As for why I consider that song applicable to those who are so fond of Echols, that's rather irrelevant to the topic of this forum, but I'd be happy to explain in detail through private messaging if you'd like.

IMHO wrong many levels. First, there isn't that much evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, I believe I have seen supporters discuss the occult, the supposed confessions, fibers and just about everything else you want to bring up. So to say they don't acknowledge it is completely absurd. To say they acknowledge it but aren't persuaded by it may be a different issue.

Having said that, if you feel there is an item of evidence I haven't acknowledged, please feel free to state what that is and I'll give it my consideration. If you simply want to refer to some other website, save your fingers the typing.

 

[kyleb]

You're not really disagreeing with what you quoted from me as I didn't make any quantitative claim regarding the evidence there, nor did I suggest any any particular pieces of evidence have gone undiscussed by various supporters over the decades. Furthermore, you've apparently imagined the disputed fiber evidence is something I "want to bring up", but that's simply not the case as I've yet to see those fibers and hence can't rightly make a qualitative judgement regarding them one way or another. That said, what I want is for someone to to refer me to some comprehensive analysis of the available evidence (that of Echols' very dark occult beliefs and otherwise) which makes the case for reasonable doubt, be it on some other website or elsewhere.

On a side note, I'd also like to clear up some confusion I've seen over the rules regarding links in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65794"]Websluths' ToS[/ame]. The only actual restrictions are the following:

The posting of a link or links below your signature so they show up each time you post is prohibited. The posting of any link that is of a personal nature or has nothing directly to do with the discussion is prohibited.

So, if for example someone has found a thread over at the Blackboard which provides a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, but which I've yet to find despite all the reading I've done over there: please link it here so I can read it for myself and start a new thread to discuss that analysis of the evidence.

Anyway, getting back to evidence of Echols' occult motives which is the topic of this of this thread, here's a page from his letters to Gloria Shettles:

This morning when I woke up my eyes wher [sic] stuck open. I must have slept that way. my heart was beating so hard it was vibrating my head. I went to hell. It was not a dream. I was really there. It wasn't that bad. The old man took me there. he is my constant companion now. my new name is baalbasath. We are leaving soon now. I have set the date for October 31. Samhain - all hallows eve. I am starting to write now because one day I want my son to read about everything that has happened before he was born

Of course that doesn't come anywhere close to proving Echols killed the boys, but it and other such comments throughout his letters to Shettles proves that he imagined himself as one with the power to transcend space and time and travel to mythical places, with the demonic name of Baalbasath no less. It's hardly absurd to suggest that such a disturbed mind would see have qualms about murdering mere mortals, particularly when that disturbed mind admitted on the stand to beveling that when people kill it "gives them power" and also that "the younger of the victims would be more innocent and in turn more power would be given the person doing the killing", as noted in Bryn Ridge's report on his 5/10 interview with Echols.

 

[claudicici]

I seriously can't believe we're talking about "occult motives" as evidence that DE committed these crimes.That's all they had when they convicted him along with a ridiculous confession anyways.
Damien explained over and over again that he was Wiccan back then "DAMIEN WENT FURTHER TO EXPLAIN THAT IN HIS WICCA RELIGION HE KNEW THAT EVIL DONE COMES BACK THREE TIMES. HE STATED THAT MEANT THAT ANY EVIL DONE BY A PERSON WOULD BE REWARDED BY THE PERSON DOING THE DEED HAVING THREE TIMES THE EVIL DONE TO HIM IN REVENGE."
I'm so tired of hearing someone with an imagination must have a "disturbed mind".
Damien had as much of a disturbed mind as all these other kids growing up in trailer parks,going through teenage angst only he is more intelligent than the average kid so he had arts and books to help him deal with life.
To me Damien is not a likely suspect but I'm also not saying it could not have been him.
There is just no evidence that links him to the crime.And I am not ignoring anything that is on Callahan.It seems like the only thing people fall back on when they're arguing about him being guilty is "the occult" and him being "crazy"
Ridiculous IMO.Connect him to the victims and the crime,show me some sort of actual evidence .

 

[kyleb]

Damien explained over and over again that he was Wiccan

Sure he has, but how do you square that claim with all the evidence of Echols' far darker occult beliefs which I've presented in this thread and the rest at Callahan which I've yet to present, or do you just prefer to ignore all that evidence?

I'm so tired of hearing someone with an imagination must have a "disturbed mind".

Well that certainly isn't what I've been suggesting. To the contrary I believe most imaginative people are hardly disturbed at all, and some have quite beautiful minds. However, there are some exceptions whose imagination leads them to very dark places, and Echols' had developed a well documented history of that in the year leading up to the murders.

As for your request for evidence of Echols' guilt beyond his occult motives and Misskelley's initial confession, I recommend WM3 Truth's The Case Against the WM3, as that provides a far more comprehensive overview of the evidence against the convicted than anything else I've come across.