Summary of Damien's Mental Health History

[kyleb]

If one wants to say Echols made a good suspect because of his mental health issues, I have no objection to it.

But no objection to those saying Echols was never a good suspect either, regardless of how demonstratively false such arguments are, eh?

But hanging one's hat on that as proof of guilt is illogical.

As is arguing as if people are doing that here.

 

[Ausgirl]

Scarlett, reedus, you both make good points.

I agree that lack of proof of innocence (in the case of a Very Good Suspect) should not equate to guilt. Yet, Echols and Misskelley are actually not off my suspect list. For reasons I won't list here (I think there's a better thread for that)-- suffice to say, for now, they're just not.

Being formerly one of those WDK's (Weird Dark Kids) myself, I can empathise with Echols, and I do. But that doesn't stop me looking at -actual- acts of violence, mental issues that are ongoing and relevant, in short, the reality of Echols that puts him squarely in the 'coulda' camp.

Same with Jessie. I think because Echols is the superstar of this whole mess, I find few full on discussions about Jason or Jessie by themselves.. Now, Jessie was a flat out bully with a temper. He punched a 13 yo girl in the stomach after spreading it about that he'd slept with her. I'm thinking, if a 17 YO boy did that to MY girl, I'd have no trouble believing he'd hurt other kids. This is who Jessie was, that's the reality of him. Doesn't make him a murderer, sure --- BUT it does indicate someone who is capable of being ruthless toward younger, weaker kids.

I can't ignore these things. Not 'proof' of guilt, nope. But reason to keep 'em both on the list in the present?-- for sure.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, reedus, you both make good points.

I agree that lack of proof of innocence (in the case of a Very Good Suspect) should not equate to guilt. Yet, Echols and Misskelley are actually not off my suspect list. For reasons I won't list here (I think there's a better thread for that)-- suffice to say, for now, they're just not.

Being formerly one of those WDK's (Weird Dark Kids) myself, I can empathise with Echols, and I do. But that doesn't stop me looking at -actual- acts of violence, mental issues that are ongoing and relevant, in short, the reality of Echols that puts him squarely in the 'coulda' camp.

Same with Jessie. I think because Echols is the superstar of this whole mess, I find few full on discussions about Jason or Jessie by themselves.. Now, Jessie was a flat out bully with a temper. He punched a 13 yo girl in the stomach after spreading it about that he'd slept with her. I'm thinking, if a 17 YO boy did that to MY girl, I'd have no trouble believing he'd hurt other kids. This is who Jessie was, that's the reality of him. Doesn't make him a murderer, sure --- BUT it does indicate someone who is capable of being ruthless toward younger, weaker kids.

I can't ignore these things. Not 'proof' of guilt, nope. But reason to keep 'em both on the list in the present?-- for sure.

To me the only way mental issues are relevant is if there is independent evidence that points to them as the murder. Then the mental issues become a way to understand it. But as a rule, I don't see this as a way to point out a suspect, just maybe a POI if that.

I will bet there are a lot of mentally interesting people in that town and area. omo

 

[UdbCrzy2]

To me the only way mental issues are relevant is if there is independent evidence that points to them as the murder. Then the mental issues become a way to understand it. But as a rule, I don't see this as a way to point out a suspect, just maybe a POI if that.

I will bet there are a lot of mentally interesting people in that town and area. omo

I believe you're right. It does seem that there is a lot of mental illness surrounding the characters in this case. Off the top of my head I can think of Damien's Mother Pam Echols, Jason's Mother Grinnell and Vicky Hutcheson for a start.

Just to add Domni and her family. I thought I remember reading that Domni and her family had mental problems too,

 

[Ausgirl]

It's such a hard topic to talk about.. Okay, I agree that mental illness =/= guilt. Or even likelihood to commit to a crime, where no predilection for violence can be seen.

BUT Echols DID hurt people. And he did so, because he was not mentally or emotionally healthy.

He did hurt people. He did threaten people, intimidate people, adults, other kids, he didn't discriminate.. I don't think that can be denied. He had mental issues, and aggressive tendencies.

So he's a brilliant suspect. IMO.

 

[Ausgirl]

Just to add Domni and her family. I thought I remember reading that Domni and her family had mental problems too,

So maybe one of them dunnit.

 

[Cappuccino]

It's such a hard topic to talk about.. Okay, I agree that mental illness =/= guilt. Or even likelihood to commit to a crime, where no predilection for violence can be seen.

BUT Echols DID hurt people. And he did so, because he was not mentally or emotionally healthy.

He did hurt people. He did threaten people, intimidate people, adults, other kids, he didn't discriminate.. I don't think that can be denied. He had mental issues, and aggressive tendencies.

So he's a brilliant suspect. IMO.

I'm afraid he isn't a brilliant suspect for this crime, IMO. If his parents had been murdered, or his gf, ex gf, or her new bf had been murdered, then I would see him as a brilliant suspect. But this crime doesn't strike me as a teenage thrill kill, or whatever the current non theory is on motive.

 

[Ausgirl]

Well, Damien alone.. you're probably right. Maybe not a 'brilliant' suspect, not in the league of JKM or some others who were looked at... Okay, so I'll amend that to "good suspect". I do think he was one, and that investigation of him was well and truly warranted.

Jessie, too. In fact, I presently think he may have been a better suspect than Echols, based purely on prior charges.

But they should never have been brought to trial, when there was better suspects roaming free and un-investigated.

 

[reedus23]

But no objection to those saying Echols was never a good suspect either, regardless of how demonstratively false such arguments are, eh?


As is arguing as if people are doing that here.

Who has said Echols should never have been a suspect or person of interest? I would disagree with them (or object as the word was). Better now?

 

[reedus23]

It's such a hard topic to talk about.. Okay, I agree that mental illness =/= guilt. Or even likelihood to commit to a crime, where no predilection for violence can be seen.

BUT Echols DID hurt people. And he did so, because he was not mentally or emotionally healthy.

He did hurt people. He did threaten people, intimidate people, adults, other kids, he didn't discriminate.. I don't think that can be denied. He had mental issues, and aggressive tendencies.

So he's a brilliant suspect. IMO.

First, I'll restate that I completely understand someone keeping Echols or any of them for that matter on their persons of interest list.

Second, this post carries more weight IMO than simply talking about mental issues. Speaking only in terms of mental health issues leads to witch hunts. Speaking of past actions of violence which may have been done, in part, because of those mental health issues is a different story. So as to the past actions, I am again curious, is one able to discern which are fact and which are fiction? I've asked before, but are there reports substantiating any of the claims? I'm sure there are as to some. For instance, the great dane story lacks any credibility and I don't consider it at all in saying Echols is a good suspect. Something about starting a fire at his school...I'm sure a police report would have been filed or referenced in the various notes. That's not something the school is going to just shrug off. I'm not trying to say he didn't have violent propensities, but simply trying to determine which are based in fact and which are based in fiction.

 

[Ausgirl]

Personally speaking, I've been going off official records mainly, as those are documented and pretty accurate therefore.

As for the cruelty to animals.. As I see it, there was just one or two reports, sure I'd think 'gossip'.. but there's MANY reports, from all over the place, and while I think a great deal of it was nothing but spin (from Echols or others) it's my opinion that so many reports have to have -some- basis in fact. But that's just my interpretation of the huge amount of reports on that one particular issue.

I don't mean to go on and on about it, it just peeves me to see arguments that he was merely misunderstood, picked on for being 'different', lalala, when clearly he was ALSO violent and unstable.

And so was Jessie.

That said, so were three fourths of the people within a fifty mile radius of the crime scene, it seems -- and Jessie and Damien were not the worst of them, by far.

 

[reedus23]

Echols for one often suggests as much, such as in this interview with Larry King:



And of course many people express such notions, Scarlett's "I see him as nothing more than a stifled hormonal teen struggling to be different in the backwoods of the bible belt and so made crazy comments to be noticed" just a few posts back being but one of many examples throughout this forum which have gone without objection from you.


Well if one goes by the standards you apply for evidence of past actions regarding Hobbs, everything from witness statements to rumors are as good as gold.

I'm not clicking the link. To many times it goes to that spin site. Besides I don't need to hear or read it to say I would disagree with anyone, including Echols himself, if he says there was no basis for him being a person of interest. What I don't believe is that there has been anything that points towards Echols guilt to the exclusion of others.

As for Hobbs, I believe the French incident was documented and reported as was him shooting his brother in law and DNA consistent with his has been found at the crime scene. That's off the top of my head.

 

[reedus23]

Personally speaking, I've been going off official records mainly, as those are documented and pretty accurate therefore.

As for the cruelty to animals.. As I see it, there was just one or two reports, sure I'd think 'gossip'.. but there's MANY reports, from all over the place, and while I think a great deal of it was nothing but spin (from Echols or others) it's my opinion that so many reports have to have -some- basis in fact. But that's just my interpretation of the huge amount of reports on that one particular issue.

I don't mean to go on and on about it, it just peeves me to see arguments that he was merely misunderstood, picked on for being 'different', lalala, when clearly he was ALSO violent and unstable.

And so was Jessie.

That said, so were three fourths of the people within a fifty mile radius of the crime scene, it seems -- and Jessie and Damien were not the worst of them, by far.

I don't disagree with you but I also don't disagree with those that believe that Echols uniqueness didn't contribute to the tunnel vision LE developed. His past may have been cause to inquire but his being "odd" turned the inquiry into fixation. I also think thank oddness is what flamed the rumors and inflamed the public ultimately allowing for a verdict that wasn't supported by credible evidence. I don't think the two lines of thought are mutually exclusive.

 

[Ausgirl]

I don't disagree with you but I also don't disagree with those that believe that Echols uniqueness didn't contribute to the tunnel vision LE developed. His past may have been cause to inquire but his being "odd" turned the inquiry into fixation. I also think thank oddness is what flamed the rumors and inflamed the public ultimately allowing for a verdict that wasn't supported by credible evidence. I don't think the two lines of thought are mutually exclusive.

Well, as I said earlier (and possibly in this thread) it's a complex issue that can't be seen clearly through one facet among many, alone.

Nice post. :tyou:

 

[MissJ]

Some kinds of mental illness do not lead to violence but that is not the case with many types of mental illnesses and especially personality disorders. JMO having worked in forensic mental health for years. People who threaten to hurt others are usually violent. I have seen and read things that would make most people sick. My forensic unit housed thirty six people who had committed murders. Only four were women. Three of the women had killed their husbands. One randomly attacked anyone in her sight (including me once). Most of the men had a history of troubled teen years and developed into bullying people who were smaller. One man had bullied and threatened everyone in his small town so much that the local police were afraid of him. He eventually cut a small boys head off with a chain saw. Many were cunning and intelligent. So I can't buy into teen angst being harmless in DE's case. So I can understand him being a suspect. I think his smart a$$ behavior at the trial helped convict him..winking at the little boys families and so forth. That represented guilt to some people (not me). I bring this up now because his behavior is still bizarre IMO. I see no love when he looks at his wife who has done so much for him. IMO he is a perfect example of a cluster of personality disorders. Again JMO but he was convicted by his own cray cray behavior at the trial more than evidence.

 

[dogmatica]

The body of evidence does not "prove innocence". It does not appear enough to prove guilt anymore, however.

Well, the 3 convicted murderers and their lawyers would disagree with you on that second sentence - hence them taking the Alford Plea.

" In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence the prosecution has would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here's the problem, IMO, with that logic (taking the Alford plea by DE, JB and JM being indicative of "fear of the evidence" [for lack of a better term]). Alford pleas have generally been entered prior to trial, not post conviction. In fact, I've researched pretty thoroughly and not found one case (except this one) where a convicted murderer was released from Death Row by taking an Alford plea. So, my problem about the strength of the evidence is the actions of the State in accepting a post conviction Alford plea for three child murderers (if the State actually believes them to be guilty). I understand why DE, JB and JM took the plea. They had already been convicted of murders for which they were innocent. Why would they not fear another conviction for this crime, even though they're innocent? Yeah, they're being told by attorneys that "this time would be different" and that "this time we've got the goods" and so on, but with their freedom (and DE's very life) on the line, I totally understand taking the deal. Like I said, what I find much more unfathomable is why the State would release three convicted killers on Alford pleas!

 

[dogmatica]

Here's the problem, IMO, with that logic (taking the Alford plea by DE, JB and JM being indicative of "fear of the evidence" [for lack of a better term]). Alford pleas have generally been entered prior to trial, not post conviction. In fact, I've researched pretty thoroughly and not found one case (except this one) where a convicted murderer was released from Death Row by taking an Alford plea. So, my problem about the strength of the evidence is the actions of the State in accepting a post conviction Alford plea for three child murderers (if the State actually believes them to be guilty). I understand why DE, JB and JM took the plea. They had already been convicted of murders for which they were innocent. Why would they not fear another conviction for this crime, even though they're innocent? Yeah, they're being told by attorneys that "this time would be different" and that "this time we've got the goods" and so on, but with their freedom (and DE's very life) on the line, I totally understand taking the deal. Like I said, what I find much more unfathomable is why the State would release three convicted killers on Alford pleas!

They did "fear another conviction for this crime", and wisely so. But not because they're innocent.

"Like I said, what I find much more unfathomable is why the State would release three convicted killers on Alford pleas!"

Money, power and pressure are powerful drugs. And murderers are set free all the time. You think the WM3 are the only 3 killers that have been set free, for whatever reason? And with the millions of dollars and the giant machine forcing their hand, not to mention people like you, who rally behind the 3 killers, it's really no surprise that after all that time in prison, they finally walked. Walked as convicted child killers, but still walked. There's no precedent for this case because there's never been such sensationalism and celebrity involvement before. Those disingenuous "documentaries" were made by 2 brilliant filmmakers, who sucked you and some very rich actors in. And with your perceived bond and connection with Damien, I can see you will wait until your dying day for the "exculpatory" evidence and the proof of the "real killer" to come to light. My only advice is...don't hold your breath.

 

[Userid]

No offense to either of you, but this argument has been beaten to death.

The deal benefited both parties equally. The State still has their guilty plea; the WM3 got out of their sentences. It's a wash. It makes sense for both sides. One side is no better/worse for choosing it than the other. The end.

 

[dogmatica]

No offense to either of you, but this argument has been beaten to death.

The deal benefited both parties equally. The State still has their guilty plea; the WM3 got out of their sentences. It's a wash. It makes sense for both sides. One side is no better/worse for choosing it than the other. The end.

The importance of it is this: the WM3 claimed to have exculpatory evidence - they were going to produce a giant "A-HA!" moment at their re-trial. They had proof they were innocent and proof of who the "real killer" was. Instead, THEIR DEFENCE TEAM approached the State with the Alford Plea. That is very, very telling imo.

Baldwin's "I relented to the Alford Plea because they were trying to kill Damien" is hilarious.