Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
Yes, the State did say that the murders were Satanic. This is from Fogleman's closing statement in the Echols/Baldwin trial:
"The testimony in this case was that these murders -- when you take the crime scene, the injuries to these kids, the testimony about sucking of blood--and do you remember there was testimony about that--in the satanic areas, that blood is a life force, there is a transference of power from drinking of blood -- when you take all of that together, the evidence was that this murder had the trappings of an occult murder. A satanic murder."
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html
Please note the part in bold. If the State didn't believe that the murders were Satanic, why would they beat the bushes to find a witness to testify about the occult? Unfortunately for them, all they found was "Dr." Griffis.
Saying that the murders were Satanic is the same as saying that the murders were part of a Satanic ritual because that's what a "satanic murder" meant. It's a distinction without a difference. Also, IMO, one of the reasons that the State so readily accepted the Alford Plea is the loss of the whole Satanism angle.
Since "Satanic panic" is no longer rampant, the State couldn't use the whole Satanism idea in an obvious attempt to frighten and influence the jury. Therefore, they have no motive. I know that providing a motive is not mandatory. However, I also know that most juries won't convict without it.
"The testimony in this case was that these murders -- when you take the crime scene, the injuries to these kids, the testimony about sucking of blood--and do you remember there was testimony about that--in the satanic areas, that blood is a life force, there is a transference of power from drinking of blood -- when you take all of that together, the evidence was that this murder had the trappings of an occult murder. A satanic murder."
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html
Please note the part in bold. If the State didn't believe that the murders were Satanic, why would they beat the bushes to find a witness to testify about the occult? Unfortunately for them, all they found was "Dr." Griffis.
Saying that the murders were Satanic is the same as saying that the murders were part of a Satanic ritual because that's what a "satanic murder" meant. It's a distinction without a difference. Also, IMO, one of the reasons that the State so readily accepted the Alford Plea is the loss of the whole Satanism angle.
Since "Satanic panic" is no longer rampant, the State couldn't use the whole Satanism idea in an obvious attempt to frighten and influence the jury. Therefore, they have no motive. I know that providing a motive is not mandatory. However, I also know that most juries won't convict without it.