New Damien Echols Interview

[reedus23]

I've read quite a bit, in the threads here and on the Blackboard among many other sources, and I've yet to find such an argument. If you have actually found any arguments for reasonable doubt which address all the evidence, please stop simply claiming they exist and link whichever one you believe is best, be it in this forum or elsewhere.

Besides the fact that the so called confession isn't worth the paper it's written on. Besides the fact that a number of the state's witnesses have recanted their stories. Besides the fact there is absolutely zero evidence at the crime scene that directly points to the WM3 to the exclusion of others. Besides the fact that there was never a murder weapon recovered. Besides the fact that there was other evidence at the crime scene that links other people to the crime. I'm sure the list goes on and on.

Even if it wasn't, random hairs wind up being transferred between people all the time, so it's hardly surprising that a har from a father of one boy might wind up on the clothing of another boy who who were as close of friends as Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch and Michael Moore. Besides, the hair isn't necessarily Hobbs' anyway.

One more item that leads to reasonable doubt if it happens "all the time" yet none of theirs were found at the crime scene.

 

[kyleb]

Isn't it possible that the bodies weren't exposed for very long that decomposition just wasn't advanced?

That's my point, the bodies obviously weren't exposed to air very long as they showed very little decomposition at the time of discovery, which was apparently around 18 hours after the murders.

About motive, why the WM3 haven't killed since. Maybe it was just a thrill kill. Maybe Misskelley and Baldwin just got caught up in something that Echols started?

Or maybe one or more of them have but without drawing suspicion, though I figure what you suggest is far more likely.

Besides the fact that the so called confession isn't worth the paper it's written on

Yes, besides unsubstantiated opinions regarding the first of Misskelley's six documented confessions to say the least.

One more item that leads to reasonable doubt if it happens "all the time" yet none of theirs were found at the crime scene.

Hardly, as the creek was bound to wash all sorts of hairs and such away. One which isn't necessarily even the father's of three close friends happening to be found because it was caught under a shoelace hardly proves reasonable doubt against the convicted, and neither does it come anywhere close to proving Hobbs ever even saw the boys that day.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Hardly, as the creek was bound to wash all sorts of hairs and such away. One which isn't necessarily even the father's of three close friends happening to be found because it was caught under a shoelace hardly proves reasonable doubt against the convicted, and neither does it come anywhere close to proving Hobbs ever even saw the boys that day.

The hair that could be Terry Hobbs' wasn't "caught under a shoelace." It was in the ligature binding Michael Moore. The way I understand it is it was in one of the knots, not just trapped in the weave of the shoelace as is implied. The point here is that, although both Damien and Jason had long hair in 1993, none of their hair was found. Boy, that water must've been special! It washed away all evidence of Damien, Jason and Jessie, but left evidence of Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby. How'd that happen, pray tell?

 

[gheckso]

I have 2 things to say:

-About the lack of decomposition. Isn't it possible that the bodies weren't exposed for very long that decomposition just wasn't advanced? Wasn't it around 12 hours after death that they were found? The bodies would still be kind of fresh, right?

The way I understand it, there is no solid confirmation of time of death

That's my point, the bodies obviously weren't exposed to air very long as they showed very little decomposition at the time of discovery, which was apparently around 18 hours after the murders.

Do you have a link for this determination of TOD?

I did find this:

Time of Death Estimates

The Coroner's report completed by Mr. Kent Hale states that lividity (the red discoloration in the skin caused by the pooling and settling of the blood within the blood vessels) was present. It also states that the lividity blanched with pressure. Lividity begins about thirty minutes after death has occurred. After 4 or 5 hours, dependent on environmental conditions, lividity fixes and will not blanche. It takes about 8 to 10 hours for lividity to become fixed. This could place the time of death (which can only be given as a range) of James Moore at sometime after daybreak on May 6th, 1993. However it is only one biological indicator, and no one indicator should be used to determine the time of death.

When Dr. Peretti conducted his autopsy of James M. Moore, on May 7th, 1993, he stated that 'Rigor was present and fixed to an equal degree in all extremities.' The time that the autopsy was conducted is not noted on the report, therefore is difficult to gauge how far the body was into rigor. However, Dr. Peretti was confident that Rigor was evenly present throughout the extremities, and that he made no mention of any dissolution. As a general guideline, Rigor reaches full even distribution within 12 to 24 hours after death. Also as a general guideline, Rigor begins to disappear within 12 hours after that, at which time decomposition begins. Again, by itself, the use of Rigor Mortis to determine a time of death, or a time range of death, is not advised. Several biological indicators should be used.

As the above suggests, a time of death of any kind is very difficult to estimate given the differences in metabolic processes between individuals, given varying individual anatomy, and given varying environmental factors. The presentation and stages of Rigor Mortis and/ or Livor Mortis (lividity) used to make such estimations are not absolute, and should be treated as guidelines, not hard and fast biological principals to be blanketly generalized from case to case.

 

[kyleb]

The way I understand it is it was in one of the knots

The documentation I've found says nothing more specific than "Hair from M. Moore ligature", and notes two other hairs from that same shoelace besides the one which Hobbs cannot be excluded as the source of. So perhaps I overstated myself and the hair was simply caught on the shoelace rather than under it, or perhaps it was in the knot as you suggests, but I've yet to find documentation to prove one way or another.

The point here is that, although both Damien and Jason had long hair in 1993, none of their hair was found.

None of the hair found is conclusively from anyone other than the victims, and not all the hair tested gave usable results. Furthermore, according to this report: "in standard reporting practices three differences are required for an exclusion." By that standard, Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report, as that only has two differences when compared to Baldwin's swab.

Boy, that water must've been special! It washed away all evidence of Damien, Jason and Jessie, but left evidence of Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby. How'd that happen, pray tell?

Nothing special of water is required to wash hairs and such away in general. That said, do you not know where and when the hair which Jacoby cannot be excluded as the source of was found? And on a side note, if you want to hear about special water, look to Echols.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Go the lies here:

HOLLYWOODCHICAGO.COM: Do you ever allow for wondering what might have been if you had done something a little differently? If you had taken a different approach ten years ago it might not have taken another ten to get out?

DAVIS: It can drive me crazy because there were mistakes made and there were people working on the case who had I known they were a psychopath I wouldn’t have gotten them involved but we didn’t know. There are psychopaths working everywhere and it just so happens a lot of them are lawyers. (Laughs.)

ECHOLS: When you have to fight against the other lawyers as hard or harder as you do against the state. Jason [Baldwin]’s lawyers. Their entire agenda was to make me look as guilty as possible, thinking somehow it was going to help him. The number one thing that people quote is Exhibit 500, a mental health report, that comes from the fact that, one day, Jason’s attorneys contacted me and said they had this idea that would be really helpful and great. I was naive. It was years ago. OK, sure, let’s do it. This woman comes and writes up this report that diagnoses me with every single mental illness known to mankind. She can’t even file it herself because she’s already perjured herself and so she takes it to another doctor to file. The number one piece of evidence that people use to try and hurt me wasn’t even filed by the state. It was filed by Jason Baldwin’s attorneys.

HOLLYWOODCHICAGO.COM: You’re fighting people who you think should be on your side.

Read more: http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/new...ri-davis-travel-west-of-memphis#ixzz2VxpOPveG

Just for the record, the Exhibit 500 was compiled by Inquisitor Inc pro bono and was evidence collected to help with mitigation if and when Echols was convicted.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree that Exhibit 500 was used by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial to try to mitigate the punishment. It didn't work; Damien was still sentenced to death. However, the point is that Exhibit 500 was compiled to make Damien look as crazy as possible. As I've mentioned before, it was exaggerated for that purpose. Since it didn't work, should we assume that Damien was not crazy at all? Was Burnett especially callous in not believing Exhibit 500 showed Damien to be crazy? I'm really still at a loss as to what Exhibit 500 proves and why it's still being discussed.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I agree that Exhibit 500 was used by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial to try to mitigate the punishment. It didn't work; Damien was still sentenced to death. However, the point is that Exhibit 500 was compiled to make Damien look as crazy as possible. As I've mentioned before, it was exaggerated for that purpose. Since it didn't work, should we assume that Damien was not crazy at all? Was Burnett especially callous in not believing Exhibit 500 showed Damien to be crazy? I'm really still at a loss as to what Exhibit 500 proves and why it's still being discussed.

That is not correct, they were original records put together by the staff who were treating him, they had no bias and did not want to make him look 'as crazy as possible' .. they merely observed and treated him. The Exhibit 500 was from records before he was in custody or accused of this crime.

 

[Venom]

It's actually closer to 2 years, but that's not the point. How come these 3 so-called vicious murderers haven't killed anyone since their release or committed any other felonies? How come Damien hasn't killed and eaten his wife yet, like so many people were sure would happen as soon as the WM3 were released? How come 3 young men that were institutionalized for 18 years and locked up with the worst of the worst haven't re-offended? I think if that was even a remote possibility, it would have happened within the first year of their release, due to the stress of re-integrating into society and learning how to live and function outside of an institution for the first time since they were teenagers. Instead, we have seen the exact opposite, which I think is because they were never guilty in the first place. :twocents:

They are kind of going to be "watched" for lack of a better word. I would think they would think that people are going to be looking at them to see if they walk a straight line. What I'm trying to say is if Damien's wife ends up dead I'm sure he would be looked into. (as ALL husbands are, not singling him out) Not sure if my thoughts are coming out clear, just they should expect a little more public scrutiny then the average person.

 

[Venom]

I agree that Exhibit 500 was used by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial to try to mitigate the punishment. It didn't work; Damien was still sentenced to death. However, the point is that Exhibit 500 was compiled to make Damien look as crazy as possible. As I've mentioned before, it was exaggerated for that purpose. Since it didn't work, should we assume that Damien was not crazy at all? Was Burnett especially callous in not believing Exhibit 500 showed Damien to be crazy? I'm really still at a loss as to what Exhibit 500 proves and why it's still being discussed.

But how can the defense have it both ways? To discredit the reports to say he wasn't crazy and wouldn't commit the murders, then on the other hand use the reports to say he was crazy and his life should be spared?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

But how can the defense have it both ways? To discredit the reports to say he wasn't crazy and wouldn't commit the murders, then on the other hand use the reports to say he was crazy and his life should be spared?

The defense didn't discredit the reports; they presented them to the court. However, as has been said before, even if he were crazier than a loon, it doesn't prove that he committed the murders. In fact, the mental health reports played no part in his conviction as they were introduced during the penalty phase of the trial. So, again, I don't understand the constant harping on them by some people.

Again, as I've said before, there are many reasons why a well-meaning mental health professional would exaggerate a client's symptoms. One reason, as has been pointed out in another thread, is if the client were "coached" in how to act so as to appear mentally ill when not. Another reason would be sympathy. When a child (or teenager) is living in poverty, sometimes getting them admitted to a mental hospital is one way to assure that they get "three hots and a cot" for at least a short while. I know this would be unethical, but I've been told by those who have reason to know that it has happened on occasion. It sounds bizarre to me that living in a mental institution would be better than living at home, but, as I've said before, sometimes in instances of extreme poverty, I've been assured that this is the case.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Weren't two of DE admissions into psychiatric care court ordered, once due to 'terroristic threatening'?

 

[reedus23]

I agree that Exhibit 500 was used by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial to try to mitigate the punishment. It didn't work; Damien was still sentenced to death. However, the point is that Exhibit 500 was compiled to make Damien look as crazy as possible. As I've mentioned before, it was exaggerated for that purpose. Since it didn't work, should we assume that Damien was not crazy at all? Was Burnett especially callous in not believing Exhibit 500 showed Damien to be crazy? I'm really still at a loss as to what Exhibit 500 proves and why it's still being discussed.

I think I've kind of lost sight of the purpose as well.

 

[Schuby]

Weren't two of DE admissions into psychiatric care court ordered, once due to 'terroristic threatening'?

All admissions to inpatient psychiatric care are court ordered unless the person voluntarily admits himself.

 

[reedus23]

That is not correct, they were original records put together by the staff who were treating him, they had no bias and did not want to make him look 'as crazy as possible' .. they merely observed and treated him. The Exhibit 500 was from records before he was in custody or accused of this crime.

The records were put together by the staff who were treating him. Exhibit 500 was put together by the lawyers, compiling the medical records they wanted to submit into evidence. While it possibly could, I would suspect Exhibit 500 doesn't represent all of his records. I know it's very typical of lawyers to only introduce into evidence those records that support the position they are putting forth. In this instance, if I were trying to establish DE's mental or psychological problems, I would have cherry picked the records that best supported that position. I think that is what was meant.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

Killing three kids at one time is not the normal way for parent involved killings. ( At least to the best of my knowledge) I think the evidence from this case has been so contaminated that finding the truth will be next to impossible. I do find it very odd that if the lawyers for the WM3 have evidence that will clear them.......then why isn't it already out there to see?

 

[Schuby]

I've read quite a bit, in the threads here and on the Blackboard among many other sources, and I've yet to find such an argument. If you have actually found any arguments for reasonable doubt which address all the evidence, please stop simply claiming they exist and link whichever one you believe is best, be it in this forum or .

I've never seen an argument for guilt that addresses all the evidence, in it's totality.

 

[reedus23]

Killing three kids at one time is not the normal way for parent involved killings. ( At least to the best of my knowledge) I think the evidence from this case has been so contaminated that finding the truth will be next to impossible. I do find it very odd that if the lawyers for the WM3 have evidence that will clear them.......then why isn't it already out there to see?

Good post. I have no idea if they have such information or not and I don't know their perspective but can give you what would be mine. I can think of a couple reasons one would have to be very careful about how and when such information is disclosed. First, you want to make sure that the manner in which it is disclosed is serving your ends. They don't want to create a situation where they disclose information and all LE does is run around trying to refute it all. You want it done in such a way that you are assured LE will give it a good, honest look. Given the history of this investigation, I suspect this is a concern. Second, obviously, if you are implicating others, there is always the concern of civil liability if you're not careful in when, what and how you say things.

 

[Schuby]

Yes, besides unsubstantiated opinions regarding the first of Misskelley's six documented confessions to say the least.

It is not an opinion that there are statements in his confession that are at odds with the physical evidence and autopsy report. That's a fact. It's a mathematical certainty. 1 is equivalent to 1. 1 is not equivalent to 2.

It is not an opinion that there are contradictions and inconsistencies between the six confessions. That's a fact. (See above note on detecting equivalence vs. non equivalence.)

 

[Schuby]

Good post. I have no idea if they have such information or not and I don't know their perspective but can give you what would be mine. I can think of a couple reasons one would have to be very careful about how and when such information is disclosed. First, you want to make sure that the manner in which it is disclosed is serving your ends. They don't want to create a situation where they disclose information and all LE does is run around trying to refute it all. You want it done in such a way that you are assured LE will give it a good, honest look. Given the history of this investigation, I suspect this is a concern. Second, obviously, if you are implicating others, there is always the concern of civil liability if you're not careful in when, what and how you say things.

Can anyone link me to an article about this claim?