Christopher Byers as primary victim...

[kyleb]

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

 

[Ausgirl]

BUT..

-- the knife is not consistent with the wounds, except in two places - in two places (actually, several more than two places..) it is not, as can clearly be seen (and as I did say clearly in my post above).

I would expect the knife that caused wounds like that to have (like many things in Arkansas) several teeth missing. And one out of place entirely, to cause such a dark abrasion where the one above has a --gap-- (ie, the absence of matter cannot cause a deep abrasion with the possible exception of suction via vacuum; it's the laws of physics, the end)

-- where did I even -mention- boots?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scrape Marks and the Survival Knife - YouTube

The problem with that is that they remove some of the marks on the body to make it fit. I don't see it as a complete match. That could have made the marks but I would not say it did for sure..

AND, is that knife they are using the murder weapon? Was it found on Baldwin,Echols, Or Misskelley??

No. No. and No.

It is just A survival knife.. Not the a knife that was used in this crime in any capacity.

 

[kyleb]

-- where did I even -mention- boots?

You mocked the Arkansas Supreme Court for noting that fact that "serrated wound patterns on the three victims that were consistent with, and could have been caused by, a knife found in a lake behind appellant Baldwin's parents' residence" as evidence, and in response I pointed out fact that many such could haves are commonly accepted as evidence in court would be excluded were that not the case, consistency of boot prints included. So, before getting into the details of your disputes regarding consistency between the knife and the wounds, do you understand why you were wrong to mock the ASC over the matter of could have?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You mocked the Arkansas Supreme Court for noting that fact that "serrated wound patterns on the three victims that were consistent with, and could have been caused by, a knife found in a lake behind appellant Baldwin's parents' residence" as evidence, and in response I pointed out fact that many such could haves are commonly accepted as evidence in court would be excluded were that not the case, consistency of boot prints included. So, before getting into the details of your disputes regarding consistency between the knife and the wounds, do you understand why you were wrong to mock the ASC over the matter of could have?

Sorry, No one is wrong to question a court and sometimes they deserve a good mocking.

Could have been, is not was. They have no murder weapon. They have no knife used in the crime. So that is all moot, Could have does not mean anything.

 

[kyleb]

The problem with that is that they remove some of the marks on the body to make it fit.

No, I made the video, and I only removed marks throughout the demonstrate how the marks were made in two separate strokes, but the autopsy photo is untouched at both the beginning and end of the video.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, I made the video, and I only removed marks throughout the demonstrate how the marks were made in two separate strokes, but the autopsy photo is untouched at both the beginning end of the video.

No. Whatever it is, Made by you., made by them it is altered from the original picture. No way I call that a match. But if someone else thought so, Show me the weapon that did it that belonged to them and has been tested as the murder weapon.

It is all moot.

 

[Ausgirl]

I wasn't mocking. I was saying they were WRONG to present flimsy, less than circumstantial evidence (ie, not a witness, not a speck of dna, not a fingerprint, no evidence whatsoever to put -that- knife in -that- hand at -that- crime scene, only a very vague 'maybe it coulda..") at a murder trial. And then inform the jury that it -could- have been the murder weapon.

And I mean WRONG in general, not just in this case.

And if the wounds don't match the knife precisely, it's even worse.

If a boot print (if we must talk boots) matched only 2 treadmarks out of 8, any reasonable person would have to think - hm, maybe it's a similar style of boot, but not this particular one...

And if -that- boot was fished out of a lake by the house of a suspect for whom there every bit as little incriminating evidence, and no-one was sure who even wore it to the crime scene, if indeed anyone did... well, you can see the analogy here.

 

[kyleb]

Do all you make these arguments for all convicted murderers, or why do you defend these three with such nonsense?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do all you make these arguments for all convicted murderers, or why do you defend these three with such nonsense?

unresponsive.

There is nothing at all that proves any of these 3 let alone all of these three babies.

That knife does not help the case against them.

 

[Ausgirl]

Do all you make these arguments for all convicted murderers, or why do you defend these three with such nonsense?

Falling back on obtuse accusations is poor form, kyle. I think you said much the same thing in a recent post, to somebody else, no?

Why do you assume I'm defending anyone?

And please do point out the 'nonsense'.

 

[kyleb]

unresponsive.

It's response to your general line of argument, as by the standards you're arguing all but the dumbest of criminals would roam free.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's response to your general line of argument, as by the standards you're arguing all but the dumbest of criminals would roam free.

Not pertinent to the conversation.

The issue is is there evidence of Baldwins involvement? And the answer is no. Amazingly the only hard evidence points to TH and a friend of his.

 

[kyleb]

And please do point out the 'nonsense'.

For instance:

If the compass had been in the end, with the compass appearing to be convex, and being convex enough to cause skin to split in at least two separate directions on impact, then it's doubtful IMO the lower, circular part of the knife's handle could have caused the circular shaped wound as well.

Assuming the compass had to protrude from edge of the hilt is nonsense, as is assuming that various wounds must have been inflicted in the same instance. The latter misconception you've applied to other wounds too, and furthermore it's utterly nonsensical to exclude the possibility that other wounds which you've not seen but which the jurors did are consistent with the knife. But of course none of that is any more nonsensical than refusing to acknowledge the fact that Echols lies about where he lived at the time of the murders, falsely attributing Martha Küntzel's words to Crowley to argue around what he actually wrote about human sacrifice, or many of the other things you've done in defense of three convicted child murders during your short time in this subforum.

 

[Ausgirl]

Suffice to say: :facepalm:

Except the error re attribution, quite right there though it's still a generally acknowledged fact in essence.

As for 'refusing to acknowledge' the Echols matter - rubbish. I did so acknowledge it. .

I'm not your enemy, kyle. And I'm not defending anyone, just examining stuff as best I'm able. No need to get upset.

 

[kyleb]

What you've described of Crowley's writings on blood sacrifice is a generally accepted myth, same as the notion that the three convicted child murders in this case are innocent. As for acknowledging the fact that Echols lies about where he lived at the time of the murders, the closest [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9956663#post9956663"]you've come[/ame] is "if indeed Echols was lying about that" while loosely addressing the topic of Echols' familiarity with the Robin Hood Hills area. As for considering you my enemy, I don't take this personally at all. Again, as hard as it may be for you to see, my interest here is in respecting the memories of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore.

 

[Ina Cognito]

Suffice to say: :facepalm:

Except the error re attribution, quite right there though it's still a generally acknowledged fact in essence.

As for 'refusing to acknowledge' the Echols matter - rubbish. I did so acknowledge it. .

I'm not your enemy, kyle. And I'm not defending anyone, just examining stuff as best I'm able. No need to get upset.

Ausgirl, you didn't falsely attribute the Crowley reference, it's in his book. It's been explained the woman mentioned suggested he use the wording, her wording, and he did. Someone is splitting hairs and it reminds me of a magician that wants you to look one place while something else is actually happening. That ref has nothing to do with the crime. Concentration on such inane details is not "investigative" it's just foolish.

Just an FYI but apparently anyone who does not agree with Kyle is a supporter of child murderers. :doh: I however, DO support the WM3 and fully admit that. I support them because through my examination of the case and applying it to my actual education, I am convinced there was nothing to prove they did anything to those children. I follow many celebrated cases and have various opinions on them. I do not just follow this one. I believe our court system should uphold justice and not put on shams like this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ausgirl, you didn't falsely attribute the Crowley reference, it's in his book. It's been explained the woman mentioned suggested he use the wording, her wording, and he did. Someone is splitting hairs and it reminds me of a magician that wants you to look one place while something else is actually happening. That ref has nothing to do with the crime. Concentration on such inane details is not "investigative" it's just foolish.

Just an FYI but apparently anyone who does not agree with Kyle is a supporter of child murderers. :doh: I however, DO support the WM3 and fully admit that. I support them because through my examination of the case and applying it to my actual education, I am convinced there was nothing to prove they did anything to those children. I follow many celebrated cases and have various opinions on them. I do not just follow this one. I believe our court system should uphold justice and not put on shams like this case.

I completely agree. What bothers me more than even murderers going free is innocent people being convicted and their lives being ruined in prison.

When we convict we should be darn sure there is evidence of an actual crime.

 

[Ausgirl]

What you've described of Crowley's writings on blood sacrifice is a generally accepted myth

No, among serious occultists, it is a generally accepted fact.

Because NOBODY who is serious about studying Crowley would accept that he did indeed sacrifice "150 perfect male children" a year for almost two decades.

They -might- however believe he spanked a lot of monkeys. The act of masturbation is a common element of sex magick rituals, and Crowley was indeed being heavily censored regarding that topic at the time Magick In Theory Practice was due to be published.

Fact. Factyfact fact fact.

 

[Ausgirl]

As for acknowledging the fact that Echols lies about where he lived at the time of the murders, the closest you've come is "if indeed Echols was lying about that" while loosely addressing the topic of Echols' familiarity with the Robin Hood Hills area.

How is that NOT acknowledging that he was not speaking accurately? My "if" was quite fairly taking into consideration the fact that Echols had not lived at the apartments near the RH hills since he was a small boy, and memory can be imperfect - especially in kids with troubled family lives.

I also was hedging, for the sake of not yet having made up my own mind as to what extent Echols lied, and why. But that he did not tell the facts as they are, I did not disagree.

So don't speak as if I simply ignored the issue for the sake of whatever agenda you imagine I hold, simply because I'm not agreeing with you at every turn.

As for considering you my enemy, I don't take this personally at all.

Then WHY, kyle, are you so compelled to hurl insult and snide insinuation and false allegations about, accusing me of being a supporter who somehow, because my post count is not as rich as yours, doesn't deserve to voice my opinion here (yes you did take a swipe at my 'recent arrival' which isn't recent at all, I just have not posted). WHY, kyle, can't you be gracious in your debate? Put a smile on your dial, once in a while?

Have a :hug: on me.

Again, as hard as it may be for you to see, my interest here is in respecting the memories of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore.

It's not hard at all for me to see. Though you DO make me squint at times.

I think we're both here for the same reasons. Just coming at it from slightly different angles.

Now, no more silly quibbling, on with the topic at hand!