Analyzing the Evidence Against Echols

[reedus23]

Old Echols vid ~ pretty gross: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmiBCugKBkg

Guess what? I used to lick blood too. I can't tell you how many times playing football I'd get a cut and to try to get in the heads of the opponent I'd lick the blood right off my arm. It was to shock them and to tell them "You can't hurt me!". And I wasn't the only one to do it.

 

[reedus23]

Still waiting on unconfirmed details that Echols had knowledge of. So far, again, everything could be gleaned from media reports, much less the rumor mill.

As with several previous questions posed to the same person, I think we will forever remain waiting for answers to this one

Oh I noticed that many of my posts would get a response about me as opposed to the question posed or the evidence.

 

[reedus23]

Are you referring to the part where Echols insists he is innocent? That's reminiscent of things Ted Bundy said before his appeals ran out:

Ted Bundy Proclaiming His Innocence - YouTube

Perhaps if Echols' appeals ran out he finally would've confessed too, or perhaps he would've killed himself without ever confessing like Harold Shipman did. I've listened to a lot of guiltily people proclaim innocence, but I know better than to take sociopaths at their word, and rather look to the evidence which you continue to ignore.


I've answered the question twice in this thread already, and the answer has been in the trial transcripts since long before I ever heard of this case. Of course you can remain oblivious to the answer forever, but the fact remains that the drowning and one being cut up more than the others were unconfirmed details of the murders which Echols offered when questioned.

I've heard a lot of innocent people proclaim their innocence too so those arguments are meaningless when it comes to determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having said that, again, that argument strays away from the evidence.

Regarding the 2 points about the evidence you do make, is it possible that all 3 boys were cut up the exact same amount? Regarding the drowning, you don't think accounts of the boys having been bound and submerged in water couldn't give rise to the inference that they drowned? He also gave various accounts of how they died in almost the same breath, indicating to me he didn't know.

 

[reedus23]

I'd previously overlooked this argument, but want to address it now:


If a shoe consistent with a print was found in the lake behind Baldwin's house, and Dena Holcomb identified it as consistent with shoes she'd seen Echols in possession of, surely you'd be just as unwilling to connect those dots as you are with the survival knife and everything else, eh? And even if the hypothetical shoe or the actual knife had been found at Echols' house, that wouldn't stop you from disregarding the evidence which does exist and demanding that which doesn't, would it?

First, I would have a hard time taking Dean Holcomb's word for it. If you had scientific evidence that the shoe print matched shoes retrieved from Damien, that would be a different story. Now, the second problem you have in your hypothetical is that a shoe print at Baldwin's house is not much different than a husband on trial for his wife's murder and his fingerprints are found in his own house. Well, there is a perfectly good explanation or reason for those fingerprints to be in the house, or shoe prints at Baldwin's house in this case, that don't have anything to do with involvement in the murder. Now if you changed it to an expert was able to match a shoe print at the murder scene with shoes retrieved from Echols, then it would be a different story and would certainly sway that pendulum toward guilt.

Regarding the remainder, you are being a bit presumptous on what I would think. If a knife was found in Damien's house and an expert could say that within a reasonable degree of medical or forensic certainty, that that knife is the one that caused the injuries, not maybe did or possibly could, but within a reasonable degree of medical or forensic certainty did cause those injuries, then obviously that would also sway that pendulum towards guilt. But again, that is straying away from the evidence as it is. The problem with the evidence as it is is that it is way too remote and way too large of a leap to say there is no reasonable doubt.

 

[Hez]

First, I would have a hard time taking Dean Holcomb's word for it. If you had scientific evidence that the shoe print matched shoes retrieved from Damien, that would be a different story. Now, the second problem you have in your hypothetical is that a shoe print at Baldwin's house is not much different than a husband on trial for his wife's murder and his fingerprints are found in his own house. Well, there is a perfectly good explanation or reason for those fingerprints to be in the house, or shoe prints at Baldwin's house in this case, that don't have anything to do with involvement in the murder. Now if you changed it to an expert was able to match a shoe print at the murder scene with shoes retrieved from Echols, then it would be a different story and would certainly sway that pendulum toward guilt.

Regarding the remainder, you are being a bit presumptous on what I would think. If a knife was found in Damien's house and an expert could say that within a reasonable degree of medical or forensic certainty, that that knife is the one that caused the injuries, not maybe did or possibly could, but within a reasonable degree of medical or forensic certainty did cause those injuries, then obviously that would also sway that pendulum towards guilt. But again, that is straying away from the evidence as it is. The problem with the evidence as it is is that it is way too remote and way too large of a leap to say there is no reasonable doubt.

BBM - Yet a hair belonging to the stepfather of one victim, that was found in the ligature used to transport one of the other victims means nothing. :facepalm: :banghead:

 

[kyleb]

First, I would have a hard time taking Dean Holcomb's word for it.

It's not a matter of would, Holcomb's testimony exists and you're choosing to disregard it, even with Echols' having discredited himself on the stand and him admitting to owning such a knife but insisting his had different coloring and was sold off before the murders. So what, you suspect "Holcomb" perjured herself to send Echols to death?

the second problem you have in your hypothetical is that a shoe print at Baldwin's house

In my hypotheticals it's the shoe that's either in the lake behind Baldwin's house or in Echols' house, while the the print was at the murder scene. Granted, I didn't explicitly say where the print was as I figured that much would be obvious, but in retrospect I should've know better.

Now if you changed it to an expert was able to match a shoe print at the murder scene with shoes retrieved from Echols, then it would be a different story

There's always a possibility that another shoe of the same size and sole patten left a print, and even the possibility that a facsimile of the sole of such a shoe was made and used to plant the print, so what you're hypothesizing is impossible.

If a knife was found in Damien's house and an expert could say that within a reasonable degree of medical or forensic certainty, that that knife is the one that caused the injuries

Like the shoe and print, there's always a possibility that another knife of the same or similar design was used to inflict an injury, and even the possibility that the injury was inflicted by something other than a knife, so what you're hypothesizing is impossible. But if only the impossible happened, then you'd stop dreaming up excuses to disregard the evidence which does exist. I get that, and it's a textbook example of unreasonable doubt.

 

[Hez]

It's not a matter of would, Holcomb's testimony exists and you're choosing to disregard it, even with Echols' having discredited himself on the stand and him admitting to owning such a knife but insisting his had different coloring and was sold off before the murders. So what, you suspect Beardon perjured herself to send Echols to death?


In my hypotheticals it's the shoe that's either in the lake behind Baldwin's house or in Echols' house, while the the print was at the murder scene. Granted, I didn't explicitly say where the print was as I figured that much would be obvious, but in retrospect I should've know better.


There's always a possibility that another shoe of the same size and sole patten left a print, and even the possibility that a facsimile of the sole of such a shoe was made and used to plant the print, so what you're hypothesizing is impossible.


Like the shoe and print, there's always a possibility that another knife of the same or similar design was used to inflict an injury, and even the possibility that the injury was inflicted by something other than a knife, so what you're hypothesizing is impossible. But if only the impossible happened, then you'd stop dreaming up excuses to disregard the evidence which does exist. I get that, and it's a textbook example of unreasonable doubt.

BBM - Is that really necessary?

 

[reedus23]

BBM - Yet a hair belonging to the stepfather of one victim, that was found in the ligature used to transport one of the other victims means nothing. :facepalm: :banghead:

So true Hez. The double standard is frustrating to say the least.

 

[reedus23]

It's not a matter of would, Holcomb's testimony exists and you're choosing to disregard it, even with Echols' having discredited himself on the stand and him admitting to owning such a knife but insisting his had different coloring and was sold off before the murders. So what, you suspect Beardon perjured herself to send Echols to death?

So taking words out of context and misrepresenting them. Completely frustrating and makes it almost impossible to hold a conversation. First, the comment was with regard to Holcomb saying that shoe prints match shoes. She's no expert qualified to render that opinion and that's what I was saying. Second, how the heck else is one to answer a hypothetical than by saying would or would not. Third, even if you want to talk about the knife, no, I would not, do not, and never will believe that Holcomb can say that a knife Damien owns matches injuries on the children.

ETA - And what are you talking about Bearden?

 

[reedus23]

In my hypotheticals it's the shoe that's either in the lake behind Baldwin's house or in Echols' house, while the the print was at the murder scene. Granted, I didn't explicitly say where the print was as I figured that much would be obvious, but in retrospect I should've know better.

Ignoring the smart *advertiser censored*$ comment, if you have a shoe that is Echols and that shoe matches a print at the crime scene within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, I think I said before that that would sway the pendulum towards guilt. The problem with the knife is that 1. You don't know that it is Echols. 2. You don't even know within a reasonable degree of medical or scientific certainty that the lake knife caused any injuries. So you are even 2 steps removed from establishing anything with regards to the lake knife. You could GUESS that the lake knife caused the injuries. You could GUESS that the lake knife belonged to Jason or Damien. But there is no reasonable degree of certainty that either of those things are true.

 

[reedus23]

There's always a possibility that another shoe of the same size and sole patten left a print, and even the possibility that a facsimile of the sole of such a shoe was made and used to plant the print, so what you're hypothesizing is impossible.

What?!?!? Can someone please help me. I'm having a senior moment and am not following. So I said IF a shoe print found at the crime scene, according to experts, matched shoes retrieved from Echols, that that would sway the pendulum towards guilt. And you are saying there is a chance that someone else with the same size shoe and sole pattern could have left the print and not Echols? I would say to you that you are changing my statement. In my original statement, I said that an expert could say within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, they are a match, it would swing towards guilt. Now you are changing it to say it only could match or is a possible match, along with others. That's a completely different scenario because you are no longer saying it's a match within a reasonable degree of certainty.

Then you want to say that it's impossible to say a match would swing towards guilt because someone could have made an impression of the sole and planted it? That doesn't make the match any less certain. It adds another possibility, albeit a bit far fetched.

 

[reedus23]

Like the shoe and print, there's always a possibility that another knife of the same or similar design was used to inflict an injury, and even the possibility that the injury was inflicted by something other than a knife, so what you're hypothesizing is impossible. But if only the impossible happened, then you'd stop dreaming up excuses to disregard the evidence which does exist. I get that, and it's a textbook example of unreasonable doubt.

Thank you for finally agreeing with the fact that it could have been animal predation.

 

[reedus23]

BBM - Is that really necessary?

That is where he goes when there is no other answer. No worries here. I just try to disregard those kind of comments and take them for what they are. Thanks though.

 

[kyleb]

a hair belonging to the stepfather of one victim, that was found in the ligature used to transport one of the other victims means nothing.

If you care to make a thread about the hair, I'd be happy to discuss it there.

BBM - Is that really necessary?

Only as long as people persist in dreaming up excuses to disregard the evidence.

First, the comment was with regard to Holcomb saying that shoe prints match shoes.

My hypothetical only has Holcomb saying the shoe are consistent with what she'd seen Echols in possession of, just like in reality she only said the knife is consistent with what she'd seen Echols in possession of. As for determining consistency between the hypothetical shoe and the print or the actual knife and the wounds, that's something anyone who looks at the evidence for themselves can do, and is a matter of fact regardless of how many people chose to deny it, experts or otherwise.

Thank you for finally agreeing with the fact that it could have been animal predation.

Nonsense. Given the given the body of evidence as a whole, the notion that the wounds which are consistent with the survival knife were actually caused by animal predation is flatly absurd.

As for my mention of Bearden, that was a brainfart on my part, I meant Holcomb and went back to edit my post to reflect as much.

 

[reedus23]

My hypothetical only has Holcomb saying the shoe are consistent with what she'd seen Echols in possession of, just like in reality she only said the knife is consistent with what she'd seen Echols in possession of. As for determining consistency between the hypothetical shoe and the print or the actual knife and the wounds, that's something anyone who looks at the evidence for themselves can do, and is a matter of fact regardless of how many people chose to deny it, experts or otherwise

My mistake then. I misread it. I thought you said or meant what if she said the print was consistent or matched his shoe. I'm a bit confused then and I apologize, are you saying what if there was a print at the crime scene, what if they found a shoe in the lake, what if they were able to say within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that they shoe matches the print and what if Holcomb says she recalls Echols having a similar shoe? Am I understanding it better?

Regarding consistencies, you are certainly entitled to weigh it yourself. For myself, I would like someone more knowledgeable and with the right training, no different than if I were looking at fingerprints. I might be able to get a general sense of similarities, but I want them to be able to tell me how and why they are a match. This abnormality in the tread here matches the print here. This ridge pattern matches this portion of the print. The wear in the tread matches this portion of the print. And so on. Otherwise, the risk is what looks similar to a lay person like me may not, in reality, be so similar.

 

[reedus23]

Nonsense. Given the given the body of evidence as a whole, the notion that the wounds which are consistent with the survival knife were actually caused by animal predation is flatly absurd.

As for my mention of Bearden, that was a brainfart on my part, I meant Holcomb and went back to edit my post to reflect as much.

But I thought you just said it could have been consistent with things other than a knife?!?!

As for Bearden, been there done that myself. Just thought maybe I was confused myself yet again.

 

[reedus23]

As for Holcomb...she comes off to me as a spurned ex. Her credibility levels are not high with me. Certainly not as credible as the softball girls IMHO.

 

[kyleb]

But I thought you just said it could have been consistent with things other than a knife?!?!

I said any given injury consistent with a particular knife could potentially come from something other than such that knife. For instance, the semicircles on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek are consistent with hilt of the survival knife:

However, there might be some design of flashlight which has an essentially identical hilt, in which case one couldn't rightly say the survival knife is more consistent with the semicircles than the flashlight. And even if one never finds such a flashlight that doesn't rule out the possibility that such flashlights exist, or the possibility that the semicircles might've been inflicted with something else, like some piece of pipe or a perhaps a belt buckle.

So again, the "scientific certainty" of a "match" between a wound and a particular knife which you claim would sway you in this case is an impossible feat in any case. However, it's not just the hit of the survival knife consistent which is with the semicircles on Stevie Branch's forehead, but also the saw teeth of the knife are consistent with the abrasions under his brow ridge and these scrape marks:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLXRJnVA9c"]Scrape Marks and the Survival Knife[/ame]

Furthermore, at least a couple other wounds were identified as consistent with the saw edge of the survival knife at the trial, such as the one Fogleman compared the spacing of with what was left by the knife when hitting it against a grapefruit, though I've yet to acquire those autopsy photos. But disregarding the consistency between the survival knife and even just those few wounds in autopsy photos I've presented requires imagining an absurd level of coincidence, and by extension so does imagining that knife just happened to wind up in the lake behind Baldwin's house.

As for Holcomb...she comes off to me as a spurned ex. Her credibility levels are not high with me.

But that opinion of yours isn't based on anything more than the fact that Holcomb had dated Echols and offered incriminating information on him which you'd prefer not to believe, is it?

 

[reedus23]

However, there might be some design of flashlight which has an essentially identical hilt, in which case one couldn't rightly say the survival knife is more consistent with the semicircles than the flashlight. And even if one never finds such a flashlight that doesn't rule out the possibility that such flashlights exist, or the possibility that the semicircles might've been inflicted with something else, like some piece of pipe or a perhaps a belt buckle.

So if you're saying you have no clue if a knife or a flashlight caused those injuries, how can you even suggest that it helps prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[reedus23]

So again, the "scientific certainty" of a "match" between a wound and a particular knife which you claim would sway you in this case is an impossible feat in any case. However, it's not just the hit of the survival knife consistent which is with the semicircles on Stevie Branch's forehead, but also the saw teeth of the knife are consistent with the abrasions under his brow ridge and these scrape marks:

Sure it's possible. Happens all the time. Just not in this case. I never said it have to be stated with 100% certainty, but the experts couldn't even say it within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. That leaves it up to conjecture and conjecture does NOT equate to beyond a reasonable doubt.