Analyzing the Evidence Against Echols

[reedus23]

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?

Sure it is. What you say is certainly one thing that goes into the consideration and jurors are told they can consider the relationship of witnesses to the parties as well. It also comes from the tone of her testimony and frankly from deposing hundreds if not thousands of witnesses.

 

[kyleb]

So if you're saying you have no clue if a knife or a flashlight caused those injuries

I'm saying the body of evidence as a whole provides more than enough clues to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Echols used the survival knife inflict the wounds.

Sure it's possible. Happens all the time.

Nonsense. There's no way to obtain "scientific certainty" of a "match" between a wound and a particular knife, which is why you can only claim it happens rather than provide examples to demonstrate as much.

It also comes from the tone of her testimony and frankly from deposing hundreds if not thousands of witnesses.

When I asked about any "anything more" I meant anything substantive, not just vague claims of tone and personal experience.

 

[reedus23]

I'm saying the body of evidence as a whole provides more than enough clues to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Echols used the survival knife inflict the wounds.


Nonsense. There's no way to obtain "scientific certainty" of a "match" between a wound and a particular knife, which is why you can only claim it happens rather than provide examples to demonstrate as much.


When I asked about any "anything more" I meant anything substantive, not just vague claims of tone and personal experience.

So, would you then agree that if I go to the pond closest to your residence, find a knife, find someone to say they had seen you with a knife once, police could then arrest you for any murder involving a knife because the wounds were consistent with being caused by a knife? Yes, I'd like something more tying it to both the crime and the person. Obviously doesn't help here, but ballistics tests come to mind with bullets. Fingerprints on the weapon. Other DNA on the weapon. Give me something more than mere guesswork. Otherwise you would be guilty of that hypothetical murder as much as the WM3 were.

 

[reedus23]

When I asked about any "anything more" I meant anything substantive, not just vague claims of tone and personal experience.

Yes, her claims are outlandish and comical. Read her statements. She likes to tell boogie man stories too.

 

[kyleb]

So, would you then agree that if I go to the pond closest to your residence, find a knife, find someone to say they had seen you with a knife once, police could then arrest you for any murder involving a knife because the wounds were consistent with being caused by a knife?

Do you not realize how badly you butchered the circumstances of this case in your hypothetical? Here's a hint: the knife wasn't found until long after the arrests.

Yes, I'd like something more tying it to both the crime and the person. Obviously doesn't help here, but ballistics tests come to mind with bullets. Fingerprints on the weapon.

Is there anything short of ballistics tests which would convince you that a particular weapon was used in a crime, and anything short of fingerprints which would convince you that a weapon was in the possession of a person?

Yes, her claims are outlandish and comical. Read her statements. She likes to tell boogie man stories too.

I've read Holcomb's statements along with those of many other people you choose to disregard as telling boogie man stories", and by substantive I meant something more than guesswork based in arguments from incredulity.

 

[EntreNous]

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

my son did the same thing. his bushido/wado ryu sensei taught him starting at age 9 to do that when he was sparring or kickboxing and got hurt, only he also taught him to smile at the opponent and say, "i like it!"

 

[reedus23]

Do you not realize how badly you butchered the circumstances of this case in your hypothetical? Here's a hint: the knife wasn't found until long after the arrests.

Since you are deflecting again, I take that as a yes, you would fully understand why you'd be arrested and convicted.

Is there anything short of ballistics tests which would convince you that a particular weapon was used in a crime, and anything short of fingerprints which would convince you that a weapon was in the possession of a person?

Sure, have the witness testify that they saw the defendant with THAT weapon. Not just something that maybe, could have, possibly, might have looked like it. Until then, the lake knife that was introduced at trial remains in fantasy land.

I've read Holcomb's statements along with those of many other people you choose to disregard as telling boogie man stories", and by substantive I meant something more than guesswork based in arguments from incredulity.

I read a lot that was only guesswork based in arguments from incredulity. In fact, the entire prosecutions case would fall under that description.

 

[reedus23]

my son did the same thing. his bushido/wado ryu sensei taught him starting at age 9 to do that when he was sparring or kickboxing and got hurt, only he also taught him to smile at the opponent and say, "i like it!"

Funny, because I was thinking it reminded me of my kids when they were about 9. They knew they were wrong in an argument so they'd change what the argument was about.

 

[reedus23]

Getting back on topic, so far, this is what I've seen:

1. Damien's lifestyle/writing - Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else. Some argue that it tenuously provides motive.

2. Fibers - Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else. Holds little to no evidentiary value as the source could be nearly anyone.

3. Girl's club girls - Provides some evidence to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else. Of all the evidence listed, probably holds the most evidentiary value if their stories are to be believed. The question is, if this is all you have to go on, is it enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth - Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else. It probably creates more reasonable doubt than it eliminates as their stories don't fit the prosecution's theory.

5. Lake knife - Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else and there is ZERO to even directly connect the knife to the crimes. As a result, it holds little to no evidentiary value.

6. Sticks - Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else. Additionally, only one stick was established to have even had a role in the murders. The rest were meaningless from an evidentiary standpoint.

7. Wax - Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else and it's not even established that it was candle wax, just that it possibly could be.

8. Echol's knowledge of unconfirmed details of the murders. Provides NOTHING to suggest Damien did it as opposed to anyone else. The suggestion that he did have such knowledge if baseless.

So out of the 8 items of evidence that was agreed upon as the evidence against Echols, only one holds any value in moving the pendulum towards guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The question then becomes, would you sentence someone to death simply based on the testimony of the softball girls? Personally, with ZERO connecting the defendants to the crime scene, ZERO tying them to the victims, ZERO tying them to any weapon used in commission of the crimes, with ZERO murder weapons in the first place, it definitely is not enough in my opinion to convict someone and sentence them to death.

 

[kyleb]

Since you are deflecting again, I take that as a yes, you would fully understand why you'd be arrested and convicted.

Not deflecting, just pointing out how absurdly you're twisting the facts to suit your argument. I'd understand being arrested and convicted for a crime if there were bodies evidence implicating me comparable to that which implicated Echols when he was arrested and convicted respectively, but not in your hypothetical scenario where you flagrantly butchered the circumstances of this case.

Sure, have the witness testify that they saw the defendant with THAT weapon.

One can't rightly identify one mass produced knife they've seen someone with to the exclusion the many others made just like it. You're the one off in fantasy land imagining otherwise, as you are throughout your summery of the evidence, superficially dismissing each item as providing nothing to suggest one person committed the crime to the exclusion of some mythical other which you imagine committed the murders without leaving such body of evidence behind. Again, do you not realize that by the standards you're applying here all but the dumbest of criminals would roam free?

 

[Hez]

Not deflecting, just pointing out how absurdly you're twisting the facts to suit your argument. I'd understand being arrested and convicted for a crime if there were bodies evidence implicating me comparable to that which implicated Echols when he was arrested and convicted respectively, but not in your hypothetical scenario where you flagrantly butchered the circumstances of this case.


One can't rightly identify one mass produced knife they've seen someone with to the exclusion the many others made just like it. You're the one off in fantasy land imagining otherwise, as you are throughout your summery of the evidence, superficially dismissing each item as providing nothing to suggest one person committed the crime to the exclusion of some mythical other which you imagine committed the murders without leaving such body of evidence behind. Again, do you not realize that by the standards you're applying here all but the dumbest of criminals would roam free?

Your point of view might be taken more seriously without the ad hominem attacks.

 

[kyleb]

I'm attacking the fanciful nature of Reedus's arguments, and that doesn't constitute ad hominem regardless of how seriously you'd like to take those arguments.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Just a word about "hypothetical" footprints. There were footprints found at the discovery ditch. Maybe it was just one footprint. However, all three of the falsely convicted men were ruled out at the source of the footprints. The footprints (really shoe prints) were, however, consistent with a man's 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 shoe. One stepfather, the one who cannot be excluded as the source of the hair in the ligature of Michael Moore, wears a size 9 1/2 shoe.

 

[reedus23]

Just a word about "hypothetical" footprints. There were footprints found at the discovery ditch. Maybe it was just one footprint. However, all three of the falsely convicted men were ruled out at the source of the footprints. The footprints (really shoe prints) were, however, consistent with a man's 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 shoe. One stepfather, the one who cannot be excluded as the source of the hair in the ligature of Michael Moore, wears a size 9 1/2 shoe.

And that is why I don't understand the blinders. There is actual evidence that actually places someone else at the scene. There is further evidence that could actually place that person at the scene of the crime if it would just be looked into. I don't get the complete blinders. One can hold onto their belief in guilt and still encourage a thorough investigation and see where it takes you.

 

[reedus23]

I'm attacking the fanciful nature of Reedus's arguments, and that doesn't constitute ad hominem regardless of how seriously you'd like to take those arguments.

If there is anyone being fanciful, it is yourself kyle. You simply regurgitate stuff from another website instead of engaging in critical thought. You have a complete inability to acknowledge weakness where weakness exists and that weakens your arguments even further. You continue to argue the most inane subjects as if that is advancing your cause. It's not. In between you engage in personal attacks. I find none of it convincing.

 

[kyleb]

Please stop taking my attacks on your arguments personally. And again, if you care to start a thread to discuss the supposed evidence implicating Hobbs I'd be happy discuss the topic there. Also, you're argument that I "simply regurgitate stuff" from WM3 Truth is demonstrably false, as for example while I consider it proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the survival knife was used in the murders, WM3 Truth casually dismisses the matter with:

Police found many knives belonging to suspects, but none that could be definitively proven to be the murder knife. The “lake knife” presented by the prosecution at trial may or may not have been the murder knife. I suspect not.

Had you not bothered to read that before, or did you simply fail to consider such facts when you slandered me as void of critical thought? And are you ever going to acknowledge the absurdity of your suggestion that a witness could identify one mass produced knife to the exclusion of the many others made just like it?

 

[reedus23]

Please stop taking my attacks on your arguments personally. And again, if you care to start a thread to discuss the supposed evidence implicating Hobbs I'd be happy discuss the topic there. Also, you're argument that I "simply regurgitate stuff" from WM3 Truth is demonstrably false, as for example while I consider it proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the survival knife was used in the murders, WM3 Truth casually dismisses the matter with:


Had you not bothered to read that before, or did you simply fail to consider such facts when you slandered me as void of critical thought? And are you ever going to acknowledge the absurdity of your suggestion that a witness could identify one mass produced knife to the exclusion of the many others made just like it?

Trust me, I don't take it personally. Just one of those moments where I'm not couching things in niceties and just calling it as I see it. As for regurgitating, yes, I have seen numerous instances where you have made posts never giving any indication that it was someone else's words only to find the same information nearly word for word on that website. And no, I'm not going back through all of the posts to find which ones.

 

[reedus23]

Please stop taking my attacks on your arguments personally. And again, if you care to start a thread to discuss the supposed evidence implicating Hobbs I'd be happy discuss the topic there. Also, you're argument that I "simply regurgitate stuff" from WM3 Truth is demonstrably false, as for example while I consider it proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the survival knife was used in the murders, WM3 Truth casually dismisses the matter with:


Had you not bothered to read that before, or did you simply fail to consider such facts when you slandered me as void of critical thought? And are you ever going to acknowledge the absurdity of your suggestion that a witness could identify one mass produced knife to the exclusion of the many others made just like it?

Yes, I will acknowledge that it is absolutely absurd for the state to put forth the argument that some random knife found in a random place that happened to be mass produced to countless numbers of people had anything to do with a murder with ZERO connecting it to the crime or the person. Yes, absolutely absurd.

 

[kyleb]

I have seen numerous instances where you have made posts never giving any indication that it was someone else's words only to find the same information nearly word for word on that website.

Perhaps you've seen as much in your imagination, but in reality I've done nothing of the sort.

Yes, I will acknowledge that it is absolutely absurd for the state to put forth the argument that some random knife found in a random place that happened to be mass produced to countless numbers of people had anything to do with a murder with ZERO connecting it to the crime or the person.

That's not what I asked, nor is it what happened.

 

[reedus23]

Perhaps you've seen as much in your imagination, but in reality I've done nothing of the sort.


That's not what I asked, nor is it what happened.

Off the top of my head I remember you posting a whole bunch of different suspects that LE looked into to try to prove your point that they didn't have tunnel vision. Low and behold, they were almost verbatim from the prosecutor's letter. That's one instance and I'm not bothering to look up more.