New Damien Echols Interview

[kyleb]

If you would really like to do so, I would suggest the Callahan's site.

I've read quite a bit at Callahan which should be obvious to anyone who reads my posts, as I regularly link to and quote from documents there. I'm interested in seeing what you were alluding to when you claimed "the wm3's defense team have put all their evidence out there" though. Has nobody ever bothered to compile the evidence you allude to into one place so that anyone who wants to review it can easily do so?

As for WM3 Truth's The against the WM3, it provides by far is the most comprehensive analysis of the evidence which I've managed to find, which is why I reference it regularly and implore others to present a more thorough analysis of the evidence If they've managed to find one. Not one person has answered that request though, and instead it's regularly dismissed with absurd claims that WM3 Truth is completely devoid of truth despite the fact that presents many undisputed facts, frivolous attacks at the website's name, and vague allusions to where such can be found. That's the same type of responses I get from a friend of mine when I contest his insistence that Bigfoot roam the wilderness.

So yeah, I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which casts reasonable doubt on the moon landings or substantiates stories of Bigfoot for that matter, just as I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which casts reasonable doubt on the three's convictions. I'd gladly change my position on any matter if I do ever come across the a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a well reasoned case for doing so. That said, I believe supporters of the convicted are more akin to people who believed Saddam was stockpiling in WMDs during the push towards our invasion of Iraq, as that was the prevailing opinion of the time despite the fact that any reasonably compressive analysis of the evidence proved such allegations unfounded from the beginning.

 

[Venom]

Killing three kids at one time is not the normal way for any kind of killing is it? Show me any crime that has three unrelated children murdered simultaneously.


The wm3's defense team have put all their evidence out there, and it has been out there to see for some time. Whether you have taken the time to read it, or not, is really your business.

:truce:
Where can I find this evidence?

Edited to add, while looking for the evidence I found these: http:www.jivepuppi.com/DNA_results_part_four.html and http://blog.freewestmemphis3.org/?tag=arkansas-take-action

 

[kyleb]

www.jivepuppi.com/DNA_results_part_four.html

I fixed your Jivepuppi link, and I've previously read quite a bit from that website, the page you linked included. In regard to the DNA testing mentioned on that page, note that none of the testing found DNA conclusively from anyone other than the victims, and not all of what was tested gave usable results. Furthermore, according to this report: "in standard reporting practices three differences are required for an exclusion." By that standard, Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report, as that only has two differences when compared to Baldwin's swab.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Found this yesterday, read joS3ph's post from page 10 - 14, he has really put a lot of work into analysing a lot of the evidence .. quite a read, but worth it.

http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?3326-West-Memphis-Murders/page10

 

[reedus23]

The real problem now is Ellington. It is his call whether or not the case is reopened. Even though he has additional information (it's not technically evidence because it hasn't been presented in court - because Ellington won't reopen the case), he refuses to act. Some people say it's because he doesn't feel that the information he's been given warrants reopening the case. (I don't understand why a letter he received over a year ago that purports to know of someone who confessed to these crimes wasn't sufficient to warrant at least investigation, but it wasn't.) People who wish to believe that Ellington doesn't reopen the investigation for this reason are free so to do. However, I and many other people feel differently. The tide has turned, even in Arkansas. Ellington is an elected official, and, as such, he will have to answer to the people of Arkansas for his inaction. Time will tell what happens, but, unfortunately for Ellington and the State of Arkansas, the Alford pleas didn't make Lorri Davis, or this case, go away.

Oh, he wants nothing more than for this case to go away. Politically and legally, it is poison to suggest that they were wrong. Hopefully you're right about the local populous. Without it, nothing will ever be done and it would take a truly courageous person in office to admit to the possibility that the State of Arkansas MIGHT (not was, but just might) have been wrong.

 

[reedus23]

it provides by far is the most comprehensive analysis of the evidence which I've managed to find,

In your opinion and that is fine.

which is why I reference it regularly and implore others to present a more thorough analysis of the evidence If they've managed to find one. Not one person has answered that request though,

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do my own analysis. I don't regurgitate what someone else has said. I might agree or disagree with any one person on any given issue. On top of that, I'm not going to constantly cite some other website because I think that violates terms of service. I'm sure I violate it at times, but I try not to make it a habit.

and instead it's regularly dismissed with absurd claims that WM3 Truth is completely devoid of truth despite the fact that presents many undisputed facts, frivolous attacks at the website's name, and vague allusions to where such can be found. That's the same type of responses I get from a friend of mine when I contest his insistence that Bigfoot roam the wilderness.

You're on a roll with the Bigfoot and moon landing references. Don't forget the "world is actually flat" and "9/11 never happened" analogies. I have opined that your website contains spin and that's fine. They present some facts and then go on to put forth their belief as to what they believe the significance of those facts are. That's perfectly acceptable. What is disingenuous is to deny that. Personally, I do find the name of your website a bit misleading, but frankly, that's not a big deal either.

So yeah, I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which casts reasonable doubt on the moon landings or substantiates stories of Bigfoot for that matter, just as I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which casts reasonable doubt on the three's convictions. I'd gladly change my position on any matter if I do ever come across the a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a well reasoned case for doing so. That said, I believe supporters of the convicted are more akin to people who believed Saddam was stockpiling in WMDs during the push towards our invasion of Iraq, as that was the prevailing opinion of the time despite the fact that any reasonably compressive analysis of the evidence proved such allegations unfounded from the beginning.

Those are your opinions and I respect your right to your opinion. I would ask that you also respect my opinion that:

I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which casts reasonable doubt on the moon landings or substantiates stories of Bigfoot for that matter, just as I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which demonstrates the WM3's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd gladly change my position on any matter if I do ever come across the a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a well reasoned case for doing so. That said, I believe those who believe the WM3 were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are more akin to people who believed Saddam was stockpiling in WMDs during the push towards our invasion of Iraq, as that was the prevailing opinion of the time despite the fact that any reasonably compressive analysis of the evidence proved such allegations unfounded from the beginning

PS - Your Saddam analogy actually more aptly fits the belief that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to your analogy, both believe in something despite little supporting evidence.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

New interviews on USA today:

Part 1: http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/05/07/2140609/
Part 2: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/damien-echols-on-west-memphis-murder-case/2360101844001

 

[kyleb]

I'm not going to constantly cite some other website because I think that violates terms of service.

What specifically makes you think that, and do you believe constantly citing Callahan violates the TOS too, or is there some sort of criteria you're alluding to here which I've yet to find?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do my own analysis.

We all do our own analysis to some extent or another, but some understand that one can't rightly expect to get very far when constantly reinventing the wheel. That's what Issac Newton was getting at when he sad "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." From such inspiration, I'm constantly looking for giants whose shoulders I might stand on in the hopes of seeing at least as far as them, and asking others to show me their giants whenever they insist I've yet to see far enough.

I have opined that your website contains spin and that's fine.

Sure, and when I've directed people who insist man has never walked on the moon to any reasonably comprehensive analysis of evidence to the contrary, some dismiss that as spin too. At least some make the effort to actually address the analyses I cite though though, and and many present alternative sources which they don't consider to be spin for me to address, which puts those people a leg up on every supporter of the convicted I've spoken with so far.

They present some facts and then go on to put forth their belief as to what they believe the significance of those facts are. That's perfectly acceptable. What is disingenuous is to deny that.

And it's ridiculous to imply I've done as much. All analysis requires some level of belief, which is my point when I bring up the fact that one can suppose this is all a dream within a dream and come to conclusions which defy any analysis beyond that.

Your Saddam analogy actually more aptly fits the belief that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to your analogy, both believe in something despite little supporting evidence.

So why is that nobody seems to be able to produce a comprehensive analysis of what evidence is available which demonstrates as much?

 

[reedus23]

What specifically makes you think that, and do you believe constantly citing Callahan violates the TOS too, or is there some sort of criteria you're alluding to here which I've yet to find?

Having been given and having read warnings to others from admin about what can and cannot be cited. Callahans is a document dump so most references to it are to the raw documents. Otherwise, it seems to me in following other cases here that it is ok to provide links to main stream media articles but its not ok to provide links to blogs or other websites. I know, for example, there's a blink something or other that is regularly deleted if linked. I wouldn't worry about it. If it's a problem, someone will alert to a post and a member of admin will let you know if it violates TOS.

 

[reedus23]

So why is that nobody seems to be able to produce a comprehensive analysis of what evidence is available which demonstrates as much?

You have heard it, you just don't agree with it and that's fine.

 

[ziggy]

New interviews on USA today:

Part 1: http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/05/07/2140609/
Part 2: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/damien-echols-on-west-memphis-murder-case/2360101844001

I liked the interviews. I think after what he's been through, his background and level of education he's done quite well for himself, and there's something to be said for that. All I get when I see him interviewed is a gentle person who has "grown up" and out of the rebellious teenager stage into an introspective adult. No doubt he was easy to hate during the trial many years ago, but I get why he acted like he did. And I can certainly understand how hard it must be to keep doing the same interviews over and over and never being able to escape his connection to the three victims. I liked his answer for why he does it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I thought it was a good interview, too. Damien obviously had some real issues when he was first released. Who wouldn't?! I just hope he continues to grow and become a productive member of society.

 

[kyleb]

I share your hope that Echols becomes a productive member of society, although as one who has yet to find any reasonable doubt that he committed the murders we obviously have vary different ideas on how he could accomplish as much.