New Damien Echols Interview

reedus23 · Jun 6, 2013

Cappuccino said:
They are all good questions, now here are mine - how come those who are so convinced that the wm3 are guilty don't just leave us alone? Its not like supporters are trying to free them or anything, we're only asking for the case to be re-opened and the evidence re-examined. They're already free, that fight was won.

If the case is re-opened and looked at with the eyes of 2013 and it still leads to Damien, Jason and Jessie, then so be it. I'll happily admit I was wrong. But I am confident that it won't. So why should we not push for the case to be re-examined?

That's a very good point that seems to lost in the mix. It's not about who here on the internet is right and wrong. At this point, with the WM3 having been released, it is about ensuring that justice is served. The only way of ensuring that happens is to re-open the case and properly investigate it. To me, that is something EVERYONE, pro and con, should be in support of, whether it points right back to the WM3 or to someone else. Why would someone not want that?

Compassionate Reader · Jun 6, 2013

kyleb said:
Rather, it's a reference to the fact that Bennie Guy's affidavit says "L G told me that they cleaned up the area as it was getting dark, that they placed the clothes and shoes in the water, and lastly submerged the bicycles in the bayou" and Billy Stewart's affidavit says "Then Buddy said that all four of them took the three boys and threw them and their clothes in the water, and threw the bicycles in the bayou." And again, the bodies would've decomposed considerably more had they not been submerged in cool water all night.

Maybe Hobbs and Jacoby went back to be sure that the area was cleaned. As to the decomposition (or lack thereof) of the bodies, I'm afraid that I don't see your point. The bodies would have been much more likely to be subject to decomposition in an underground structure than in a drainage ditch. Have you ever been in Arkansas in May? It's pretty warm, and drainage ditch water is not all that cool!

What other agent could've proven whether or not the luminol reaction was caused by blood?

I'm not a chemist, but I know that, "As with other catalytic tests, luminol is not specific for blood and can also give a positive reaction with some plant enzymes, oxidising agents and metals. An experienced user of luminol can distinguish these reactions from those given by blood by the colour of the luminescence, how long it persists for, and in the degree of 'sparkle' of the luminescent product. Blood tends not to sparkle, but produces a steady luminescence, whereas some metals tend to give a definite sparkling luminescence." (source)

Given the slip-shod manner of the investigation of this crime, I sincerely doubt that the wmpd was "experienced" enough to be assured that the Luminol reaction was from blood. I know that, because of its inconclusive nature, Luminol testing alone cannot be used in court to "prove" that blood was present. It can only show that blood could have been present. However, many people still believe that Luminol testing "proves" the presence of blood. The source I cited above mentions some other agents and methods that are more accurate in determining the presence of blood.

reedus23 · Jun 6, 2013

Compassionate Reader said:
Given the slip-shod manner of the investigation of this crime, I sincerely doubt that the wmpd was "experienced" enough to be assured that the Luminol reaction was from blood. I know that, because of its inconclusive nature, Luminol testing alone cannot be used in court to "prove" that blood was present. It can only show that blood could have been present. However, many people still believe that Luminol testing "proves" the presence of blood. The source I cited above mentions some other agents and methods that are more accurate in determining the presence of blood.

You also hit on something else that had broader implications in the trial as well. For the same reason that the luminol testing should not have been and wasn't admitted at trial, much of the other evidence should not have been either. It was just too speculative(knives, sticks, etc.). The thing is, when it comes to admitting or excluding evidence, judges are given relatively wide latitude and even if their ruling is wrong, the burden for overturning them on appeal is extremely high. It is not sufficient to simply say the ruling was in error.

kyleb · Jun 6, 2013

Cappuccino said:
We want this case to be re-opened, and re-examined thoroughly. Do you have a problem with that, KyleB, and if you do why?

I've got a problem with wasting taxpayer money in general, be it on reopening cases which the publicly available evidence proves guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or otherwise.

reedus23 said:
it is about ensuring that justice is served.

Do you believe the previously popular finger pointing at Mark Byers was about ensuring justice was served? It seems like a gross injustice to me, as does the more recent finger pointing at Hobbs and others.

Compassionate Reader said:
Maybe Hobbs and Jacoby went back to be sure that the area was cleaned.

Supposition is no substitute for evidence. That said, have you ever considered the possibility that the two affidavits from imprisoned rapists which you cite as evidence are nothing more than lies?

Compassionate Reader said:
The bodies would have been much more likely to be subject to decomposition in an underground structure than in a drainage ditch.

That's basically what I've said. More correctly: the bodies would've decomposed more due to exposure to air and likely at least slightly warmer temperatures.

Compassionate Reader said:
Have you ever been in Arkansas in May?

If I was ever in Arkansas it was just passing through with my parents when I was around 3 or 4 years old. However, I've checked recorded temperatures in West Memphis for 5/5/93 and 5/6/93, and the high on the 5th was 73 °F, it dropped to 59 °F over the night, and topped out at 82 °F the next day. I've come in contact with many bodies of water under such conditions throughout my years, only the ones which weren't artificially heated weren't rather cool, particularly so from shortly after sunset to a while after sunrise.

Compassionate Reader said:
I sincerely doubt that the wmpd was "experienced" enough to be assured that the Luminol reaction was from blood.

The WMPD wasn't in charge of the luminol testing, but rather it was "conducted by the Arkansas State Crime Lab" as mentioned in the order where it was excluded from the Baldwin/Echols trial among other documents.

Compassionate Reader said:
The source I cited above mentions some other agents and methods that are more accurate in determining the presence of blood.

It doesn't say if any one be conclusive regarding blood soaked soil though, and unless such an agent was available prior to the trials one can't rightly blame the investigators for a failure to follow up regarding the testing.

kyleb · Jun 6, 2013

reedus23 said:
For the same reason that the luminol testing should not have been and wasn't admitted at trial, much of the other evidence should not have been either. It was just too speculative(knives, sticks, etc.).

For a qualified opinion to the contrary regrading luminol, see Florda Attorney General Pam Bondi:

Luminol tests are relevant
A luminol test for the presence of blood can be considered relevant evidence when it is used in addition to other facts, even though the chemical can react to things other than human blood, the 4th DCA ruled.
Alan Mackerley was convicted of first-degree murder. Results of a luminol test that found the presence of blood near Mackerleys front door was introduced as evidence during the trial. Mackerley argued that because luminol can react to substances other than human blood, the evidence should have been excluded. The DCA disagreed, finding the luminol test to be relevant to the case.
Here, there was evidence that the victim had been shot by appellant in appellant's home and that there had been much blood. There was additional evidence that the surfaces on which the blood would have spattered were removed or cleaned within a day or two of the victim's disappearance. If there had been no such evidence, these tests might not have been relevant, or their relevancy might have been outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. In this case, however, we find no abuse of discretion in allowing the jury, which was aware of the limitations of the tests, to consider the evidence, the DCA said.

Further down that page you can find mentions previous rulings which found luminol results admissible. As for the claim that other evidence was "too speculative", can you cite any rulings to support that notion?

Compassionate Reader · Jun 6, 2013

kyleb said:
Supposition is no substitute for evidence. That said, have you ever considered the possibility that the two affidavits from imprisoned rapists which you cite as evidence are nothing more than lies?

I do not believe that the new affidavits are 100% accurate and have said so. The affidavits were given years after the encounters with L. G. and Buddy and, since neither Bennie nor Billy had any real reason to remember every little detail (just as Damien had no reason to remember his every movement prior to the revelation of the murders), it is possible that there are mistakes in these documents. However, I do believe that the affidavits did accurately identify the killers. Also, there is no credible evidence proving that Damien, Jason and Jessie committed these murders. All that was given was Jessie's lame stories, fiber evidence (which has since been disproved - source) and anecdotal evidence from the likes of a couple of 'tweens and a drug addict who has since recanted.

That's basically what I've said. More correctly: the bodies would've decomposed more due to exposure to air and likely at least slightly warmer temperatures.

Sorry. I was unclear. If the bodies were in a manhole, there would have most likely been water at the bottom of the manhole. Underground it would have been cooler than in the drainage ditch, not warmer. Ever been in a basement in the summer? So, the lack of decomposition supports the manhole theory.

If I was ever in Arkansas it was just passing through with my parents when I was around 3 or 4 years old. However, I've checked recorded temperatures in West Memphis for 5/5/93 and 5/6/93, and the high on the 5th was 73 °F, it dropped to 59 °F over the night, and topped out at 82 °F the next day. I've come in contact with many bodies of water under such conditions throughout my years, only the ones which weren't artificially heated weren't rather cool, particularly so from shortly after sunset to a while after sunrise.

So, on May 6, 1993, to day the bodies were found, it was 82 degrees. That's pretty hot. Also, it rained on the fifth, IIRC. The humidity would make the heat index several degrees hotter. So, in short, it was hot. I've been in bodies of water, too. IMO, unless they are artificially cooled, I'd consider them warm. They may be cooler that the air temperature, but not usually by much.

The WMPD wasn't in charge of the luminol testing, but rather it was "conducted by the Arkansas State Crime Lab" as mentioned in the order where it was excluded from the Baldwin/Echols trial among other documents.

I don't trust them, either!

It doesn't say if any one be conclusive regarding blood soaked soil though, and unless such an agent was available prior to the trials one can't rightly blame the investigators for a failure to follow up regarding the testing.

You're trying to draw a red herring across the trail. The point is that Luminol testing alone is not admissible evidence of the presence of blood. There were other tests available that would have been admissible, but the ACL didn't perform those tests. So, the Luminol evidence is not proof of anything.

reedus23 · Jun 6, 2013

I've got a problem with wasting taxpayer money in general, be it on reopening cases which the publicly available evidence proves guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or otherwise.

I don't think that addressed the issue. Beyond that, no, all of the publicly available evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or else the State would have never released them. It may be your opinion, but that is it.

Do you believe the previously popular finger pointing at Mark Byers was about ensuring justice was served? It seems like a gross injustice to me, as does the more recent finger pointing at Hobbs and others.

I think this. I think that theories and possibilities develop over time. Some get squashed as new evidence comes to light. Others become solidified as more evidence is discovered. Investigations need to be somewhat fluid and pliable as more information is obtained. So does it bother me that one theory doesn't pan out as more evidence comes to light? No. Does it bother me that people who are ultimately innocent are raked over the coals? Sure. At the end of the day, the fact that LE's investigation was fixated from the outset and inflexible as more information came to light, was part of the problem.

reedus23 · Jun 6, 2013

when it is used in addition to other facts,

That is the key part of your cited text and differentiates it.

As for the claim that other evidence was "too speculative", can you cite any rulings to support that notion?

No. The judge admitted it into evidence. He didn't exclude it as being too speculative. That was kind of my point.

kyleb · Jun 7, 2013

Compassionate Reader said:
All that was given was Jessie's lame stories, fiber evidence (which has since been disproved - source) and anecdotal evidence from the likes of a couple of 'tweens and a drug addict who has since recanted.

The source you linked on presents dispute of the fiber evidence, not actual analysis to disprove it, but you're comment does prove that you don't know what anecdotal means nor apparently how many young girls reported hearing Echols confess to the murders.

Compassionate Reader said:
If the bodies were in a manhole, there would have most likely been water at the bottom of the manhole.

Not unless it had been raining heavy, which it hadn't been. Drainage systems aren't designed to store water but rather to drain it, hence the name. It seems you understood this previously when you came up with y[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7101165&postcount=90"]our silly story about[/ame] drainage systems being sprayed for mosquitoes to explain the lack of bites from such, as being submersed a far less fanciful explanation for that.

Compassionate Reader said:
So, on May 6, 1993, to day the bodies were found, it was 82 degrees.

No, the high was 82, which was likely after the bodies were found.

Compassionate Reader said:
The humidity would make the heat index several degrees hotter.

Heat index is how much hotter the humidity makes it feel in comparison to dry heat, it doesn't change the actual temperature, and being submersed in water makes humidity irrelevant.

Compassionate Reader said:
There were other tests available that would have been admissible, but the ACL didn't perform those tests.

Again, what other tests are you alluding to specifically?

reedus23 said:
no, all of the publicly available evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

I've yet to find an argument which makes the case for reasonable doubt while acknowledging all the publicly available evidence. If you've found such an argument, please share.

reedus23 said:
when it is used in addition to other facts,

Click to expand...

That is the key part of your cited text and differentiates it.

No, it doesn't differentiate it, as the "other facts" are "evidence that the surfaces on which the blood would have spattered were removed or cleaned within a day or two of the victim's disappearance", and the corilary in this case is the bank having the appearance of being slicked down along with the fact that Misskelley confessed to having done so with Baldwin and Echols.

reedus23 said:
The judge admitted it into evidence. He didn't exclude it as being too speculative.

What I'm wondering is: can you cite any precedent to support your assertion that Burnett should've exude the "knives, sticks, etc." for being "too speculative"?

Compassionate Reader · Jun 7, 2013

kyleb said:
The source you linked on presents dispute of the fiber evidence, not actual analysis to disprove it, but you're comment does prove that you don't know what anecdotal means nor apparently how many young girls reported hearing Echols confess to the murders.

In typical "non" fashion, the ad hominem attacks have started! The so-called "softball girls" were eavesdropping on a conversation when they supposedly "overheard" Damien admit to committing the murders. Their statements would have normally been considered hearsay, but were admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule. I realize that, generally speaking, "anecdotal evidence" is a story that is not directly related to the matter at hand (the murders, in this case) but provides some information related to it. However, since I don't believe the girls' assertions, their stories are anecdotal as I am sure you consider the alibis given for Jessie by his friends to be anecdotal.

Not unless it had been raining heavy, which it hadn't been. Drainage systems aren't designed to store water but rather to drain it, hence the name. It seems you understood this previously when you came up with your silly story about drainage systems being sprayed for mosquitoes to explain the lack of bites from such, as being submersed a far less fanciful explanation for that.

The drainage system will still be cool and damp. The temperature alone would *advertiser censored* the decomposition of the bodies, whether or not there was a significant amount of water in the manhole for a considerable time or not. I have never contended that there was a considerable amount of water in the manhole, but one can drown in a teaspoon of water, I've been told.

No, the high was 82, which was likely after the bodies were found.

IMO, it was considerably hot by 1:30ish, when the bodies were found, even if the high wasn't reached until a couple of hours later. I live in the South, so I know of what I speak.

Heat index is how much hotter the humidity makes it feel in comparison to dry heat, it doesn't change the actual temperature, and being submersed in water makes humidity irrelevant.

The reason for the heat index (often called the "feels like" temperature) is because things and people outside in the heat are being subjected to hotter temperatures than the thermometer indicates. Being submersed in water won't take away the heat index as the water heats up as the outside temperature rises. If there is significant humidity, the water will heat up even more.

Again, what other tests are you alluding to specifically?

They're mentioned in the article I previously linked.

kyleb · Jun 7, 2013

Compassionate Reader said:
In typical "non" fashion, the ad hominem attacks have started!

How is what I said a ad hominem attack, particularly in comparison to your "You're trying to draw a red herring across the trail" accusation against me?

Compassionate Reader · Jun 7, 2013

kyleb said:
How is what I said a ad hominem attack, particularly in comparison to your "You're trying to draw a red herring across the trail" accusation against me?

Saying, "You're trying to draw a red herring across the trail" is not an attack on you personally, but is more of an attack on your "evidence" in this case. However, calling my theory a "silly story" and impugning my intelligence by saying that I don't understand what "anecdotal" means are personal attacks.

kyleb · Jun 8, 2013

I attacked your story about story about drainage systems being sprayed for mosquitoes, not you. I also attacked your misuse of the term anecdotal, but I didn't make any attempt to suggest that proves you lacking in intellect in any general sense, nor do I have any reason to make any such an attack against you.

As for your suggestion that I'm "trying to draw a red herring across the trail", that would be a dishonest thing to do. I've no interest in being dishonest though, and I'm at a loss as to how I could consider your accusation to the contrary anything but an attack on me.

Cappuccino · Jun 8, 2013

I've got a problem with wasting taxpayer money in general, be it on reopening cases which the publicly available evidence proves guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or otherwise.

You can hardly call it a waste of tax payers money when there is such a widespread belief in these mens' innocence, AND they are also free in society. If a new investigation can lay those doubts to rest than it should be done for the simple reason that people have a right to know if they're living near a child killer.

Compassionate Reader · Jun 8, 2013

kyleb said:
I attacked your story about story about drainage systems being sprayed for mosquitoes, not you. I also attacked your misuse of the term anecdotal, but I didn't make any attempt to suggest that proves you lacking in intellect in any general sense, nor do I have any reason to make any such an attack against you.

You called the theory "silly" which I see as an attack on my intelligence. As to the comment about my "misuse of the term anecdotal," that is the same as saying that I don't understand the term (which, IIRC, is what you actually said), and that is an attack on my intelligence, whether you meant it or not.

As for your suggestion that I'm "trying to draw a red herring across the trail", that would be a dishonest thing to do. I've no interest in being dishonest though, and I'm at a loss as to how I could consider your accusation to the contrary anything but an attack on me.

Using a red herring is not dishonest. So, pointing out that you were doing so is not an ad hominem attack. Attempting to pass judgement on one's intelligence is an ad hominem attack, but, since you claim that you didn't intend to do that, I'll consider it an apology and move on.

kyleb · Jun 9, 2013

Cappuccino said:
You can hardly call it a waste of tax payers money

I can and I do. People cling to all sorts of positions of faith regardless of what evidence exists to the contrary, which leaves me to doubt reopening the case would have any notable effect on popular perception. A new investigation isn't going to stop people from doing things such as pretending Misskelley only confessed once and after a far longer interrogation than actually took place, dismissing witness reports of Echols confessing as if they were anecdotes or hearsay and not even acknowledging but a couple of those reports, embracing any of the many other fallacious arguments which they do to convince themselves and others that the convicted are innocent.

If filmmakers and reporters started actually providing factual overviews of the evidence rather than "going for a higher emotional truth" as Berlinger explained he did with Paradise Lost, perhaps that would sway popular perception. However, actual documentations and journalists seem to be a dying breed, with the media regarding this case being but one example of that among many.

Compassionate Reader said:
Using a red herring is not dishonest.

Inadvertently introducing red hearing is an honest mistake, but trying to employ a red hearing is quite the contrary. As the page you linked explains: "If a person commits this consciously they are either deceptive or intellectually dishonest."

Cappuccino · Jun 9, 2013

I can and I do. People cling to all sorts of positions of faith regardless of what evidence exists to the contrary, which leaves me to doubt reopening the case would have any notable effect on popular perception. A new investigation isn't going to stop people from doing things such as pretending Misskelley only confessed once and after a far longer interrogation than actually took place, dismissing witness reports of Echols confessing as if they were anecdotes or hearsay and not even acknowledging but a couple of those reports, embracing any of the many other fallacious arguments which they do to convince themselves and others that the convicted are innocent.

If filmmakers and reporters started actually providing factual overviews of the evidence rather than "going for a higher emotional truth" as Berlinger explained he did with Paradise Lost, perhaps that would sway popular perception. However, actual documentations and journalists seem to be a dying breed, with the media regarding this case being but one example of that among many.

I think that's a bit of a cop out, because I'm sure you know very well that there are many people who have gone beyond watching the PL documentaries and MSM coverage of this case and are still either convinced of innocence, or at least on the fence about it. People who know full well that Misskelley confessed more than once, for example, and after what length of time. To say that intelligent people who have read up on the case details, and don't believe the case for the prosecution, could never be convinced just sounds to me like an excuse to keep the investigation closed.

Compassionate Reader · Jun 9, 2013

kyleb said:
Inadvertently introducing red hearing is an honest mistake, but trying to employ a red hearing is quite the contrary. As the page you linked explains: "If a person commits this consciously they are either deceptive or intellectually dishonest."

Either you are admitting that you consciously attempted to draw a red herring across the trail or you are admitting that it was an unconscious effort on your part. Which is it? The link I previously provided will explain (as you pointed out) the meanings of each situation. However, by pointing out the fact that your argument was a red herring, I was letting it be known that the information was irrelevant and an attempt (either conscious or unconscious) at redirecting the discussion.

kyleb · Jun 9, 2013

Cappuccino said:
To say that intelligent people who have read up on the case details, and don't believe the case for the prosecution, could never be convinced just sounds to me like an excuse to keep the investigation closed.

As I noted a few posts back, I've yet to find an argument which makes the case for reasonable doubt while acknowledging all the publicly available evidence. If I ever do, then I'll join in calls for reopening the case, but absent that I'm left to conclude that such would be a waste of taxpayer money.

Compassionate Reader said:
Either you are admitting that you consciously attempted to draw a red herring across the trail or you are admitting that it was an unconscious effort on your part. Which is it?

I most certainly haven't make any attempt to be deceptive, and I'm pretty sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any red herrings here either. Were exactly is this red herring which you insist I've presented?

Compassionate Reader · Jun 9, 2013

kyleb said:
I most certainly haven't make any attempt to be deceptive, and I'm pretty sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any red herrings here either. Were exactly is this red herring which you insist I've presented?

When discussing the Luminol testing earlier, I stated that the wmpd should have tested the supposed blood stains with a different agent, which would have made the results admissible in court. You stated that, if such an agent were not available at the time, the wmpd couldn't be faulted for not using it. The fact that additional testing was required in order to make the Luminol results admissible means that such an agent was available. So, by suggesting that I was holding the wmpd to an impossible standard, you were (IMO) implying that the wmpd did nothing wrong wrt the Luminol testing. IMO, that is introducing a red herring, or, if you prefer, a Catch-22. Both situations are apropos here. Either way, the fact that other testing for the presence is/was available but was not performed is the point.

Additionally, from what I put in bold above, I am led to believe that your attempt to redirect the discussion was unconscious, correct? If so, if you would refer back to the link on the red herring fallacy that I provided earlier to see how people should react in such a situation.

New Damien Echols Interview

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics