About the knife...

[Compassionate Reader]

Again, even if the Lake knife matched the wound (which it doesn't), where is any corroboration that the knife belonged to Jason or Damien? I'm sorry, but being found in a lake behind the Baldwin trailer, a lake that the whole trailer park apparently uses as a garbage dump, is not sufficient to link the knife to Damien or Jason. The truth is that there is no forensic evidence that links the knife so conveniently found in the lake to the crime.

 

[kyleb]

CR, if you can ever bring yourself to acknowledge the fact Echols lived in West Memphis at the time of the murders, as he testified to on the stand, only then I'll be willing to try to help you work past your specious arguments regarding the knife and other evidence.

 

[primitivefuture]

. but my conjecture is based on the improbability of the mark winding up right at the center point of the semicircle by sheer happenstance, while yours is obviously based on a desire to exclude the knife along with any other evidence which implicates the three who were convicted of and eventually plead guilty to the murders.

I got the impression that Aus found it curious as well. And anyway, while I agree that it is improbable that the mark would end up at the center point, it's not impossible. It's unproductive to direct accusations at someone who has been totally patient with you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

It's unproductive to direct accusations at someone who has been totally patient with you.

... whoops.

 

[kyleb]

And anyway, while I agree that it is improbable that the mark would end up at the center point, it's not impossible.

The mark having wound up at the center point isn't a matter of probably, it's a matter of fact. The improbably is that compass on the knife was shaped in such away that it couldn't result in those marks, but if that is the case then obviously the compass fell out of the knife before Echols bludgeoned Stevie Branch's face with it repeatedly.

 

[Ausgirl]

Right, you want to prove the likely to be impossible, to the point that you proclaim proof absent evidence. I'm not making any assumption here, I'm watching you do it.


So, what's stopping you?

A/ PFFFT. Go pick up ANY convex-ended implement, and smack a watermelon with it. Then try to tell me the outer edge of the end of the convex surface leaves a ring without also sinking to the depth of the convex portion into the fruit. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the open end of the pipe to have left an imprint of any kind, anywhere, which matches the dimension of the outer edge of the pipe while the compass was sitting in it. I don't know why this so HARD to get across. It's basic laws of physics. What DOES make sense is either that two blows occurred, one atop the other, one with the compass in place and one without, or the x laceration was caused by something else entirely and its proximity to center of the ring mark is sheerly coincidence.

OR the compass was inset.

Or, as it may happen, the survival knife was not the cause of those marks at all. Which still MAY be a viable possiblity.

B/ I'll do what I wish, and in my own time, thank you.

 

[Ausgirl]

then obviously the compass fell out of the knife before Echols bludgeoned Stevie Branch's face with it repeatedly.

This is a good hypothesis.

 

[primitivefuture]

A/ PFFFT.
Or, as it may happen, the survival knife was not the cause of those marks at all. Which still MAY be a viable possiblity.

Most likely, the survival knife that possibly maybe belonged to Jason was at the bottom of the lake when the children were killed.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the open end of the pipe to have left an imprint of any kind, anywhere, which matches the dimension of the outer edge of the pipe while the compass was sitting in it.

Only if you assume the compass protruded from the edge of the hilt, whereas given the center mark it's far more likely the compass was slightly recessed along the lines of the two examples I've drawn here:

Or, as it may happen, the survival knife was not the cause of those marks at all. Which still MAY be a viable possiblity.

Only as long you disregard the constancy between the knife and the wounds along with all other evidence which implicates the three who were convicted of and eventually plead guilty to the murders. <modsnip>

 

[Ausgirl]

the constancy between the knife and the wounds

What constancy .. some marks appear to match, some do not.

 

[kyleb]

Consistency, I meant consistency. I apparently made a typo, picked the wrong option on the spell check, and failed to notice my mistake, something my dyslexia unfortunately leaves me doing rather often. And of course not all the wounds are consistent, because only some of the wounds were inflicted with the knife. As for mutually respectful discourse, if I were shouting "PFFFT" at you while proclaiming "IMPOSSIBLE" regard things which are quite possible and bemusing "I don't know why this so HARD to get across", surely wouldn't you consider that any more respectful than the way I responded to you doing as much? And do you see how if you'd have respected the possibility of configurations of the compass in the knife like I two depicted above rather than trying "to prove that the x wasn't made by any knife-with-compass-in at the SAME TIME as the circular marks" absent evidence to do so with, such harsh discourse between us could've been avoided here?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If the only exact match to the Lake knife is in the semi-circular wounds that were possibly made with the end of the knife, sans compass or whatever was there before it was removed, can it be theorized that those wounds could have been made by something else of the same circumference and thickness, like a hollow pipe? I guess what I'm really asking is, is there anything that indicates that the knife entered into evidence was the only object that could have caused the semi-circular wounds?

 

[nursebeeme]

YOU



If you see the above word in your posts it may be wise to go back and review your post before hitting submit. At websleuths we do not allow personalization of posts and the use of the word YOU is a good gauge as to whether a post is addressing the post and not the poster.​

 

[kyleb]

What about I then? There's a lot of of arguments from personal incredulity and such going around here, it's difficult to address such fallacies without acknowledging their source.

 

[nursebeeme]

What about I then? There's a lot of of arguments from personal incredulity and such going around here, it's difficult to address such fallacies without acknowledging their source.

jumping off of your post:

1) all opinions are welcome: address the post and NOT THE POSTER (THIS INCLUDES THE SNARK)

2) if a fact is stated link it up

3) any concerns with a post? hit the alert button

 

[gheckso]

Listed on Callahan: Link
State's Exhibit #42 (Knife) [MISSING]

Is this just Callahan's method of tagging the exhibit, or is the knife actually missing?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Listed on Callahan: Link
State's Exhibit #42 (Knife) [MISSING]

Is this just Callahan's method of tagging the exhibit, or is the knife actually missing?

Could it be out for testing? I'm just guessing.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Could it be out for testing? I'm just guessing.

Or could it mean that even though the item was on the Exhibit list, the paperwork was not available for Callahan to photocopy and link?