My Theory

[Compassionate Reader]

This was during the penalty phase of the proceedings. The defense was trying to lessen the sentence and was presenting a witness who would make Damien's condition look as bad as possible. Obviously, it didn't work as he was given the death penalty. So, I guess the jury didn't believe Dr. Moneypenny. I guess his testimony was simply exaggerated and Damien was not nearly as dangerous as Moneypenny testified.

 

[h818]

This was during the penalty phase of the proceedings. The defense was trying to lessen the sentence and was presenting a witness who would make Damien's condition look as bad as possible. Obviously, it didn't work as he was given the death penalty. So, I guess the jury didn't believe Dr. Moneypenny. I guess his testimony was simply exaggerated and Damien was not nearly as dangerous as Moneypenny testified.

Right...any defense expert opinions that make Damien look bad should be dismissed because they were exaggerated to help him. But, the defense experts who present opinions favorable to the defense should be accepted as gospel.

 

[justthinkin]

This was during the penalty phase of the proceedings. The defense was trying to lessen the sentence and was presenting a witness who would make Damien's condition look as bad as possible. Obviously, it didn't work as he was given the death penalty. So, I guess the jury didn't believe Dr. Moneypenny. I guess his testimony was simply exaggerated and Damien was not nearly as dangerous as Moneypenny testified.

Au contraire. The jury did buy Dr. Moneypenny's testimony, which as it turned out, backfired on the defense. This is a risk defenses take when experts are called to testify, but since defenses can't control what the expert says 100%, they go with the experts they think are most compatible with their defense, and hope all goes well. In this case, where the defense hoped to establish that Damien's mental illness made him unfit for the death penalty, the jury instead decided Damien was not only a permanent threat to society, but also to any inmates incarcerated with him.
MOO.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Au contraire. The jury did buy Dr. Moneypenny's testimony, which as it turned out, backfired on the defense. This is a risk defenses take when experts are called to testify, but since defenses can't control what the expert says 100%, they go with the experts they think are most compatible with their defense, and hope all goes well. In this case, where the defense hoped to establish that Damien's mental illness made him unfit for the death penalty, the jury instead decided Damien was not only a permanent threat to society, but also to any inmates incarcerated with him.
MOO.

IMO, that's not what happened. Given the leanings of the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial and the apparent predisposition of the entire town to believe that Damien was the "ringleader" of the devil-worshiping group, I think it was a foregone conclusion that Damien would be given the Death Penalty. I don't think that anyone's testimony would have swayed them in their resolve to put Damien on Death Row. IOW, they had already decided that Damien was a threat to society (and other inmates) before the trial had even begun.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Right...any defense expert opinions that make Damien look bad should be dismissed because they were exaggerated to help him. But, the defense experts who present opinions favorable to the defense should be accepted as gospel.

As I've said before, I look at the credibility of the "expert." I don't believe Peretti and I don't believe Griffis. I do believe the forensic pathologists presented by the defense, at least as far as they all concur - mainly that the majority of the wounds were the result of postmortem animal predation.

I also believe, as I stated earlier, that some of the defense witnesses, especially in the penalty phase, were trying to put things about Damien in the worst light possible in hopes to mitigate his sentence. That's what they're supposed to do. It would make no sense for the defense to call a witness that was saying derogatory things about their client otherwise.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

However, they weren't all repaired. Some were removed. One had part of the exterior smoothed (while leaving a big chunk missing). Others were simply left as they were. All of this was done after the Manhole Theory was made public. The big question is why was one manhole singled out for a semi-facelift (which basically merely smoothed the part of the surface that might have been matched up to scrapes on one of the victims)? Also, why were some removed while the others were left alone? Yes, they all appear in need of repair, but they all weren't repaired or removed. That appears suspicions, at least IMO.

Are you saying their public works dept. is part of some conspiracy? Come on now.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I also believe, as I stated earlier, that some of the defense witnesses, especially in the penalty phase, were trying to put things about Damien in the worst light possible in hopes to mitigate his sentence. That's what they're supposed to do. It would make no sense for the defense to call a witness that was saying derogatory things about their client otherwise.

The same could be said of Misskelley being retarded or have the mind of a child.

Defense Expert Witness Dr. Wilkins:

WILKINS: 1989 we had a performance of 84 and a verbal of 68 and a full-scale of 74.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?

WILKINS: Yes.

DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?

WILKINS: 88.

DAVIS: Ok, and what was his full-scale IQ at that time?

WILKINS: 73.


http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html


Then Dr. Rickert said that a person performing skills at a 3rd grade level does not mean that they are thinking like a 3rd grader, but their spelling and math is like that of a 3rd grader. As a teacher I'm sort of surprised that you didn't understand that.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2180.jpg

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Of course I understand that doing poorly on a spelling or mathematics test doesn't necessarily mean that the subject has reduced reasoning skills. An IQ test is not a simple spelling or mathematics test, however. Jessie's full range IQ was consistently in the 70 - 74 range. This range is classified as borderline mentally retarded which alone would not prove diminished reasoning ability, but it would certainly put up a big red flag that diminished reasoning ability might be present.

In order to be admitted into Special Education classes (which Jessie was), more is tested than the subject's IQ. Although IQ is usually the first thing tested, then tests are conducted to see if the low IQ score is a result of a learning disability such as dyslexia or dyscalcula. Once learning disabilities are ruled out, further testing is usually performed to more accurately determine the reasoning ability of the subject, or the lack of age-appropriate reasoning ability in the subject.

In Jessie's case, from what information has leaked out (since the school records are sealed), it is painfully obvious that he reasons at a very low level. Dr. Rickert didn't say that the low IQ scores ruled out a lower level of reasoning. He was simply pointing out that the IQ test alone is insufficient to determine the reasoning ability of the subject.

 

[claudicici]

I had an experience the other morning that made me realize how easy it is to be coerced into false confessions and I'm not mentally retarded(well,my development may be a bit arrested) Anyways I work at a hotel and a guest came to the desk and claimed his Admin.Assistant dropped off an important package for him that morning.I did not receive that package but the guest insisted it was dropped off at 6AM and I was the only one there at the time.I went home and spend all day worrying about that package and something strange started to happen in my mind.Since I was the only one there and the person had no reason to lie about dropping off the package I started believing I must have forgotten because I was busy.By the time I went back to work I was almost sure it did happen and I could even see in my mind the person dropping off the package.
It later turned out she dropped it off at the wrong Hotel.
Long story short,it made me realize how easy it would be to be talked into witnessing a scenario that did not really happen.

 

[claudicici]

I was responding to your statement "Because even now there are adults posting here that take a kids word for it when he writes down he's a sociopath...." Damien wrote that he was homicidal and psychotic on his SS application. He was 18, old enough to understand that it is a crime to falsify applications for government benefits.

And yes, his problems did effect people outside of his family. He got in trouble for being violent at school.

So you agree he was not really a sociopath.
I agree he should have been held responsible for falsifying an application.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Are you saying their public works dept. is part of some conspiracy? Come on now.

No, I don't think that the public works department is part of the conspiracy. The public works department is told what to do by those above them. The higher-ups who, IMO, told the public works department to repair only a certain part of one manhole are the ones who conspired to railroad three innocent teenagers and are still trying to cover their tracks.

 

[deelytful1]

Wow, when do you think we will all start trying to figure out who actually did this as opposed to debating the guilt of the WM3? Every time I get onto WS and i see these posts show up in my "New Posts" my heart twinges and i think about Stevie, Michael and Chris and the fact that they have not received justice. I pray as I write this that somehow, someway their killer(s) will be brought to justice or already have and they received their justice in the place of ALL justice. Those precious little boys deserved SO much more. I can't even imagine the fear they knew in their last hours.. I take solace in the fact that they are in a place of ultimate peace.

 

[Paige SC]

Why didn't ""Damien"" ever change his name back? I know the BS reason he gave on the stand for WHY he originally changed it to start with.. but I'm wondering why he wouldn't want to return to his birth name at some point after being convicted of murder?

Also, what's the consensus on the boards as far as guilt or innocence of the WM3? Is there a poll similar to that of the Amanda Knox poll?

Also, what was Damien's involvement in torturing and mutilating animals? I read that as undisputed fact somewhere but can't recall where..

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, Damien is keeping his name because he likes it. It is his privilege to do so. And, IMO, the reason he changed it in the first place was what he said on the stand, no BS at all.

I don't know about a poll. Maybe an administrator could start one. I don't know how. I am convinced that the WMFree are innocent.

The whole animal mutilation thing is not undisputed fact. It is based on a statement made by a teenager which has not been proven. The Great Dane owner was never found, and the teenager who made the statement was not called to testify at the trial. IMO, the teenager who made the statement was merely seeking his fifteen minutes of fame, nothing more.

 

[Paige SC]

two words : STEVEN AVERY. All these boys will be back in the penitentiary before it's all said and done. Sho'nuff.

And for such a troubled teen suffering from psychosis & hallucinations, who fought, who tried to gouge out the eyes of another person, who threatened to kill his mother.. and suddenly decided to change his name to a ''biblical'' character is downright LAUGHABLE. Yeah, I"m sure he loves his name. To change it at this point would negate all the hard work he's done in having folks remember him for all his ''good'' deeds and suffering, right? Nevermind the " omen ".. of which I'm sure he was a huge fan...

 

[Compassionate Reader]

two words : STEVEN AVERY.

Just because one man who was falsely imprisoned for a crime he did not commit got out of prison and committed another, more serious, crime is no indication that this will be the fate of the WMFree or anyone else. If you look at the information from The Innocence project, you will see that most falsely-convicted people don't reoffend. Steven Avery is simply not germane to this case.

All these boys will be back in the penitentiary before it's all said and done. Sho'nuff.

This is your opinion. My opinion is that the WMFree will all lead productive lives outside. They will have an extensive support system of family and supporters to help them.

And for such a troubled teen suffering from psychosis & hallucinations, who fought, who tried to gouge out the eyes of another person, who threatened to kill his mother.. and suddenly decided to change his name to a ''biblical'' character is downright LAUGHABLE. Yeah, I"m sure he loves his name. To change it at this point would negate all the hard work he's done in having folks remember him for all his ''good'' deeds and suffering, right? Nevermind the " omen ".. of which I'm sure he was a huge fan...

You have no proof of any of the things you stated in this last paragraph. I have had students who have made similar threats (about killing a parent or harming a fellow student) who didn't follow through with the threats because the threats were made to gain attention. Yes, Damien was a troubled teen, but that does not prove that he became a murderer any more than any of the students who I heard make similar threats became murderers. In fact, most of those "troubled" students that I taught became productive citizens. None of them went to jail to my knowledge, and many of my former students came by to visit me after they graduated from high school.

Also, whether or not Damien liked the movies to which you refer (the first of which was released when he was two years old) is really immaterial. There is no proof that those movies had anything to do with Damien's name change. That salacious detail was another attempt by the prosecution to make the murders appear to have a Satanic connection, which they did not.

 

[katydid23]

Compassionate Reader,

I used to work with 'At Risk' teens. Specifically with those at risk of not graduating from school. I worked in a tutoring program of last ditch efforts to help them stay in school.

I personally knew of many 'threats' to harm themselves or their parents or their ex's or the principal, or whomever their hormonal rage was being directed against. In the 10 years I worked with those kids, only one ended up actually harming anyone. He joined a gang and did a drive by.

But the rest were just cries for help pretty much. I had girls saying they were going to kill their stepmoms, and years later I would see them all out together for Mothers day meal. One boy I was concerned about because his dad did hit him, so I worried he was making real threats. But he was able to get help and he moved out of the home successfully moving on with his life.

I think Damien was troubled, but he did not hurt those boys. And imo, he would have worked through his issues. Hopefully he still can now.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Of course I understand that doing poorly on a spelling or mathematics test doesn't necessarily mean that the subject has reduced reasoning skills. An IQ test is not a simple spelling or mathematics test, however. Jessie's full range IQ was consistently in the 70 - 74 range. This range is classified as borderline mentally retarded which alone would not prove diminished reasoning ability, but it would certainly put up a big red flag that diminished reasoning ability might be present.

In order to be admitted into Special Education classes (which Jessie was), more is tested than the subject's IQ. Although IQ is usually the first thing tested, then tests are conducted to see if the low IQ score is a result of a learning disability such as dyslexia or dyscalcula. Once learning disabilities are ruled out, further testing is usually performed to more accurately determine the reasoning ability of the subject, or the lack of age-appropriate reasoning ability in the subject.

In Jessie's case, from what information has leaked out (since the school records are sealed), it is painfully obvious that he reasons at a very low level. Dr. Rickert didn't say that the low IQ scores ruled out a lower level of reasoning. He was simply pointing out that the IQ test alone is insufficient to determine the reasoning ability of the subject.

Except here in this document when his IQ was 88 and 84 before the murders and before the malingering. Here is the testimony of Dr. Rickert about the higher IQ testing done previously and it was 88 and 84.
http://callahan.8k.com/cgi-bin/i/images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2165.jpg


Dr. Rickert explains that he does not have the mind of a third grader, but performs academically like one. I am guessing because he didn't want to attend school and was on probation at a very young age.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2180.jpg

He further explains here:
http://callahan.8k.com/cgi-bin/i/images3/jm_trial/jm_rickert/jm_trial_2181.jpg

So, you really can't say that he was retarded or was like a third grader or 5-year-old or whatever spin you want to put on it.


:skip::skip::skip:

 

[UdbCrzy2]

You have no proof of any of the things you stated in this last paragraph. I have had students who have made similar threats (about killing a parent or harming a fellow student) who didn't follow through with the threats because the threats were made to gain attention. Yes, Damien was a troubled teen, but that does not prove that he became a murderer any more than any of the students who I heard make similar threats became murderers. In fact, most of those "troubled" students that I taught became productive citizens. None of them went to jail to my knowledge, and many of my former students came by to visit me after they graduated from high school.

Also, whether or not Damien liked the movies to which you refer (the first of which was released when he was two years old) is really immaterial. There is no proof that those movies had anything to do with Damien's name change. That salacious detail was another attempt by the prosecution to make the murders appear to have a Satanic connection, which they did not.

I don't think this was included in the documentary, but have you seen the 500 files yet? Someone recently posted about this very thing, just in case you missed it, you might want to take a look

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7202273&postcount=176"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Summary of Damien's Mental Health History[/ame]

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes, I've read the NON's Bible. I am not impressed with any of it. I know that a lot of the information was collected by the defense and presented in the penalty phase of the trial in an effort to get a reduced sentence. Burnett, obviously, didn't believe the pronouncements contained therein as he still sentenced Damien to death, a sentence which has now been set aside as Damien is not a murderer.

Additionally, even if Damien were crazy as a bed bug back in 1993 or even now, that would not make him a murderer. There is simply no evidence to prove his participation in the murders of Stevie, Michael and Chris. Continued attempts to throw these allegations and suppositions around just show how weak any case against him really is. Of course, since he is now a free man, it's all moot.