My Theory

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Compassionate Reader said:
Read this story of Marcus Dixon. When he was 18, he had consensual sex with a 15 year old. Georgia convicted him of statutory rape. The conviction was overturned on appeal.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/24924-marcus-dixon-the-story
Click to expand...

According to this article from Snopes he should have been convicted of a lesser charge of statutory rape. It wasn't overturned because it's okay for adults to have sex with minors.

This article also states that the victim was paid 130k. Check it out yourself.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/dixon.asp

I do believe that Echols began a relationship with Teer when she was 14-years-old according to her mother's testimony.
 
You're beating a dead horse! It doesn't matter how old Domini was when she and Damien had sex. Even if it was legally statutory rape, he wasn't charged and therefore he won't have to register as a sex offender and wouldn't have had to had he been charged. That's the point of the Dixon case. Please move on.
 
A statutory rape conviction is not much compared to a conviction for a triple homicide.
 
I do believe that Echols began a relationship with Teer when she was 14-years-old according to her mother's testimony.
Click to expand...

At which stage Damien would have been 16 and still a minor himself. Two minors messing about with each other sexually is an issue that should be handled by parental guidance, not the criminal justice system.
 
Personally I don't think kids should have sex, consensual or not. However, I can't have my d'ruthers. The point here about teen sex is that, if two teens have consensual sex, especially if they are close (within two years) in age, the boy shouldn't be charged with statutory rape while the girl bears no consequence (providing, of course, that she didn't get pregnant). If a pregnancy results from the sex, both parties should accept the responsibility for their actions.

Damien never disowned his child. It was difficult for him to offer support while he was incarcerated. IIRC, he did set up a trust fund for Seth when the case began to garner so much attention and monies began to accrue. It seems to me that Damien did what he could.

I believe that I read in Almost Home that Damien encouraged Domini to move away and keep Seth away from information about the trial until he was old enough to understand. Further than that I will not go because whatever relationship Damien has now with Seth or Domini is his business. The important thing here is that Damien did what he could as soon as he could where Seth was concerned. Since neither Domini nor her mother claimed that a rape occurred, I think we should do likewise. Let it go.
 
Cappuccino said:
No, it wouldn't. A person has to be convicted of a sexual offense before they can be required to register as a sex offender. Thankfully, some people are still too sane to want an 18 year old who has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend to be criminalised for it.
Click to expand...

yep, and in order for the police to charge Damien with a sex crime, either his underage girlfriend would have to want him charged or her parents and since neither of that (that we know of) happened he cannot be charged with having sex with his underage girlfriend.
 
iluvmua said:
yep, and in order for the police to charge Damien with a sex crime, either his underage girlfriend would have to want him charged or her parents and since neither of that (that we know of) happened he cannot be charged with having sex with his underage girlfriend.
Click to expand...

Also, IIRC, when they began having sex, he was still a minor himself. Remember, he turned 18 in December of 1992. He returned from Oregon shortly before the murders, IIRC, and he already knew Domini. I don't think that Seth was the product of their first and only sexual encounter. Since he sought Domini out for help when he returned to Arkansas, my guess is that their sexual relationship predates his move to Oregon. However, as I said before, and as you agree, since he was not accused by either Domini or her parents, it's really a moot point.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
Personally I don't think kids should have sex, consensual or not.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. You're an adult, and therefore you don't think teens should have any sex at all. However, teens don't agree. They always have had as much sex as they can get their hands on, and they probably always will.

Their hormones are all over the place at that age, which is , of course, why they shouldn't be left unchaperoned. If you've got a hormone-addled, horny, 14 year old girl left alone with her hormone-addled, horny, 16 year old boyfriend, what do you think is going to happen?

If you start placing unchaperoned teens who let their hormones get the better of them onto the Sex Offenders Register, you're going to end up with half the young men in your country locked up before they're even old enough to buy a beer.

Try supervising them, and also try not allowing your 14 year old daughter to live with her boyfriend. That may be more sensible than treating the boy as if he's a rapist.
 
Cappuccino,

You gave me my laugh for the day! Thank you.

On a serious note, what you said is oh so true. So many of the problems with teenagers could be solve with proper chaperonage. When my husband taught middle school (for eight long years), he used to refer to the students as walking, talking hormone shows. When his school did the whole put the condom on the banana thing, he said it was ridiculous. All the kids did was snicker. People need to realize that teenagers are not adults and will not act like adults. They won't talk like adults, either. Given the hormones and the peer pressure, teens really have it tough. They certainly don't need to be falsely accused of murder - or rape!
 
Statutory rape is not an issue pertaining to Damien. In Arkansas, the age of consent is 16 for girls, and if the female is under the age of 16, the male must be at least 3 years older. Not ever the case with Damien and Domini.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
Again, this is none of our business. However, I believe that she lets Seth visit with Damien.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Anyway, if it's not your business then why do you know about it? Why post it? How exactly do you determine what is our business?

Isn't Seth an adult? Free to choose? Your "beliefs" are not facts. Is this a fact? Or a belief?
 
Damien mentioned his limited relationship with Seth in an interview before he was freed. In a post release interview, he mentioned that he had seen Seth. Since Seth was born shortly before Damien was incarcerated, he is 18 or 19 now. Yes, that means that he can make his own choices. Beyond that I will not go because all three freed men have expressed a desire to have privacy within familial relationships. I intend to respect that desire.
 
Even though it's none of our business I agree but since there is so much interest Domini's facebook is only partially private and she is friends with a lot of Damien's family including his step dad so I assume they all still have very familiar,friendly relationships.
 
Compassionate Reader,

Your theory is quite interesting, and offers a lot of detail I've never seen before.


My only reservation is that if this is the primary crime-scene and the perpetrator interacted with the victims on multiple occassions, I would expect far more forensic evidence than say a hair, which could have arrived via secondary transfer.

Why bother staging the crime-scene if silence was the motive?


It seems that the boys were killed to silence them, possibly because something we do not know about was about to become public e.g. abuse.

.
 
The perpetrator returned to the manhole (which was never investigated by the police) not the dump site. That's why there is so little forensic evidence at the dump site. IMO, the bodies were moved from the manhole to the discovery ditch sometime in the early morning hours of May 6th. The bodies were moved either to facilitate their discovery or to remove them from possible evidence in the manhole.
 
Compassionate Reader, this is a fantastic theory. It answers a great number of questions, although it does leave a few others still open. However, they are not major questions, so that is all well and good. This theory could be fine tuned and it would be, in my opinion, a much more tenable explanation for what happened than what has been proffered so far. :thinking: Of course, as I have said before, our opinions are all we have at this point. But yours is much easier to believe than the one offered by the state of Arkansas when this trial was taking place. Thank you for sharing it, CR, I found it exhilerating and intriguing. I will have to see how it compares with my theory, which as I've told you once, is on the lunatic fringe as far as I can figure it. :goodpost:
 
I look forward to reading yours, GK!

BTW, I've since changed my mind about the specific manhole. It was probably one of the smaller ones - the Thicket manhole. It's also possible that the boys (Steven first) were slammed into the side of the manhole and the unconscious bodies (the killer thought them to be dead) placed in a drainage pipe instead of actually inside the manhole. The pipe I have in mind is the one in the background when JMB is creating "graves" for the WM3 in the PL docs. Having just reread my original theory, I'm surprised that I haven't changed my mind about much else I wrote! BTW, since the Blackboard is now gone, the pictures, etc. regarding the manhole theory can now be found on the WM3 Friends Facebook page if anyone is interested. Here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/WM3BlackboardFriendsPage/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 113 more.
Total: 2,962 (members: 114, guests: 2,848)

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,848
Total visitors
2,962
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,920
Messages
18,101,563
Members
230,955
Latest member
ClueCrusader
Back
Top