New Damien Echols Interview

[Compassionate Reader]

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?

Two of the boys were killed because they were witnesses to the other murder. As to why the attorneys haven't presented evidence, some had been previously presented, but was basically ignored by Ellington. So, it is my understanding that the attorneys are waiting until they have what they feel will be sufficient evidence to reopen the investigation. Right now, with the Alford pleas in place, that would be the first step. Ellington is in charge of that decision. His term will be up sometime in 2014, IIRC. Tick. Tock.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Is this a new interview: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/damien_echols_how_death_row_prepared_me_for_my_new_life/

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Can anyone link me to an article about this claim?

Here is one of the pieces of evidence that has been submitted post release.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Is this a new interview: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/damien_echols_how_death_row_prepared_me_for_my_new_life/

It appears to be an article, written by Damien and published today (6/12/12) for the Website salon.com. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

In this article the civil suit, filed by attorneys for Mark Byers and Pam Hicks, is discussed. It was this civil suit, and the refusal of the courts to allow access to the evidence to the parents of the victims, that precipitated the release of the affidavits discussed in the "New witnesses" thread. (Sorry, I can't figure out how to do internal links!) Again, it is my understanding that there is yet more evidence that has not yet been released publicly.

 

[gheckso]

Here is one of the pieces of evidence that has been submitted post release.

I believe there are very specific reasons for not going public as it may actually aid the perp/s in covering themselves and hinder the efforts of others. :wink:

 

[Venom]

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.

I was wrong, I thought the Exhibit 500 was brought up during the actual trial. I think people bring them up and harp on them is to show that he was a disturbed individual. To me, his mental state makes it more likely that he did commit the murders. JMO. If he was into torturing animals, I can see that going onto torturing humans. And I know there will be some who claim that none of the 3 ever murdered, tortured anyone else. I still feel that what happened that day started out little and snowballed into something bigger.
moo

 

[gheckso]

I still feel that what happened that day started out little and snowballed into something bigger.

This I definitely agree with, we may differ on the perpetrator/s.

Is this a new interview: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/dami...r_my_new_life/

He quotes within this article and it reflects my thoughts about the treatment one would have received whilst on death row.

"things like healthcare are almost completely nonexistent in prison. Especially on death row. After all, why waste time and energy taking care of someone you plan on killing?"

 

[reedus23]

I was wrong, I thought the Exhibit 500 was brought up during the actual trial. I think people bring them up and harp on them is to show that he was a disturbed individual. To me, his mental state makes it more likely that he did commit the murders. JMO. If he was into torturing animals, I can see that going onto torturing humans. And I know there will be some who claim that none of the 3 ever murdered, tortured anyone else. I still feel that what happened that day started out little and snowballed into something bigger.
moo

I can respect that and don't know that I disagree with much of what you say, beyond the belief that there's enough there to make it more likely that he did commit the murders. Little doubt that DE did have some mental/psychological issues going on, just differences of opinion on the depth and meaning of that. I also would not be surprised, regardless who committed the murders, that it started as something less and snowballed into the gruesome murders they were.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I was wrong, I thought the Exhibit 500 was brought up during the actual trial. I think people bring them up and harp on them is to show that he was a disturbed individual. To me, his mental state makes it more likely that he did commit the murders. JMO.

I agree that someone with mental problems would be a person of interest. However, IMO, mental problems alone are not a justification for the targeting of Damien early in the investigation. It was Jerry Driver and Steve Jones who pointed the wmpd in Damien's direction, and it was at Jerry Driver's insistence (according to Almost Home) that Damien was first placed into a mental institution. This same Jerry Driver went so far as to notify the authorities in Oregon that Damien should be watched. Then, when Damien returned to Arkansas, Driver again targeted him. In his testimony for the Rule 37 hearing, Joseph Samuel Dwyer testified that all the teens were scared after the murders because they were "profiled because of our rock T-shirts, the trench coats, the long hair." So, Damien, being a part of that group, was targeted because of his manner of dress and taste in music.

If he was into torturing animals, I can see that going onto torturing humans. And I know there will be some who claim that none of the 3 ever murdered, tortured anyone else.

However, there is no actual proof that Damien tortured animals. That being said, generally speaking, those who torture animals sometimes go on to torture people, but it's not a "cause and effect" thing. The most important thing to remember here, IMO, is that neither of those persons who claimed to have witnessed Damien killing the Great Dane were called to testify. IMO, that speaks volumes.

I still feel that what happened that day started out little and snowballed into something bigger.
moo

You may be right about that. However, what possibly "snowballed into something bigger" was a step father disciplining his son, killing him accidentally and then having to eliminate two witnesses. At least this scenario is a possibility, supported by the declarations of two of Pam's sisters as to his violent nature toward Steven, fibers found in his knife that are consistent with the black shoelaces used to bind the victims, and the presence of a hair in a ligature that cannot exclude this step father but does exclude Damien, Jason and Jessie. Yes, it's circumstantial evidence. However, it's much more compelling, IMO, than that against Damien, Jason and Jessie.

 

[Venom]

I can respect that and don't know that I disagree with much of what you say, beyond the belief that there's enough there to make it more likely that he did commit the murders. Little doubt that DE did have some mental/psychological issues going on, just differences of opinion on the depth and meaning of that. I also would not be surprised, regardless who committed the murders, that it started as something less and snowballed into the gruesome murders they were.

So I take it you think one of the step fathers did it?
I can see how people can think that one of them was involved, I'm not going to dispute that there isn't some evidence/hinky meter that points to them.
I feel that the wm3 were involved. Maybe they (or one and the others went along) just wanted to "have some fun" that day and mess with the boys. I really think that may be what it was and something went wrong.
I'd really just like to see justice for those boys and the case solved, as in without a doubt who did it.

 

[reedus23]

I agree that someone with mental problems would be a person of interest. However, IMO, mental problems alone are not a justification for the targeting of Damien early in the investigation. It was Jerry Driver and Steve Jones who pointed the wmpd in Damien's direction, and it was at Jerry Driver's insistence (according to Almost Home) that Damien was first placed into a mental institution. This same Jerry Driver went so far as to notify the authorities in Oregon that Damien should be watched. Then, when Damien returned to Arkansas, Driver again targeted him. In his testimony for the Rule 37 hearing, Joseph Samuel Dwyer testified that all the teens were scared after the murders because they were "profiled because of our rock T-shirts, the trench coats, the long hair." So, Damien, being a part of that group, was targeted because of his manner of dress and taste in music.

I made a note about Driver/Jones when I first started reading only the reports and how they are as much or more to blame for what I perceive as tunnel vision as anyone. Did not know about the Oregon information. Thanks.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd really just like to see justice for those boys and the case solved, as in without a doubt who did it.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. However, it won't happen unless Ellington reopens the investigation.:banghead:

 

[reedus23]

So I take it you think one of the step fathers did it?
I can see how people can think that one of them was involved, I'm not going to dispute that there isn't some evidence/hinky meter that points to them.
I feel that the wm3 were involved. Maybe they (or one and the others went along) just wanted to "have some fun" that day and mess with the boys. I really think that may be what it was and something went wrong.
I'd really just like to see justice for those boys and the case solved, as in without a doubt who did it.

I have no idea who did it. As was said earlier, I think there's certainly sufficient evidence pointing towards one of the step-fathers to justify re-opening a true investigation. Like I said before, I think there's more physical evidence pointing in that direction than towards the WM3, but that's just my opinion.

We can absolutely agree that we all want justice for those boys and the case solved, though I'm sure there will always be some doubts on one side or the other or both.

 

[Cappuccino]

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?

Killing three kids at one time is not the normal way for any kind of killing is it? Show me any crime that has three unrelated children murdered simultaneously.


The wm3's defense team have put all their evidence out there, and it has been out there to see for some time. Whether you have taken the time to read it, or not, is really your business.

 

[kyleb]

I'd really just like to see justice for those boys and the case solved, as in without a doubt who did it.

There's always going to be unreasonable doubt, like people who insist man has never ventured onto the moon. And sometimes unreasonable doubt becomes the prevailing opinion, like the doubt that Saddam had stopped his pursuit WMDs which drove popular support for the invasion of Iraq. That said, I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a case for reasonable doubt for the convicted. Have you? If so, please share.

The wm3's defense team have put all their evidence out there, and it has been out there to see for some time. Whether you have taken the time to read it, or not, is really your business.

Were exactly can one find this trove of evidence which you allude to? Granted, I've read a spattering of arguments from the defense in various places, and seen those in the movies and their 2007 conference, but if the defense has taken the time to compile all their all their evidence for people to review, then I'd like to do so.

 

[Cappuccino]

Were exactly can one find this trove of evidence which you allude to? Granted, I've read a spattering of arguments from the defense in various places, and seen those in the movies and their 2007 conference, but if the defense has taken the time to compile all their all their evidence for people to review, then I'd like to do so.

If you would really like to do so, I would suggest the Callahan's site. It doesn't have "truth" in its title, unlike your favourite site, but it does actually contain some truth.

 

[Cappuccino]

There's always going to be unreasonable doubt, like people who insist man has never ventured onto the moon. And sometimes unreasonable doubt becomes the prevailing opinion, like the doubt that Saddam had stopped his pursuit WMDs which drove popular support for the invasion of Iraq. That said, I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a case for reasonable doubt for the convicted. Have you? If so, please share.

So you think supporters of the wm3 are comparable to Moon landing deniers, or what?

 

[reedus23]

There's always going to be unreasonable doubt, like people who insist man has never ventured onto the moon. And sometimes unreasonable doubt becomes the prevailing opinion, like the doubt that Saddam had stopped his pursuit WMDs which drove popular support for the invasion of Iraq. That said, I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a case for reasonable doubt for the convicted. Have you? If so, please share.

What I haven't heard is a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a case for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases, the argument for reasonable doubt isn't established by pointing to evidence as you suggest, but rather is established by pointing out the lack of evidence that directly ties a defendant to a crime to the exclusion of others. I think the lack of evidence has been discussed ad nauseum. To assert that you haven't heard people discuss the lack of evidence tells me you either haven't read the posts or choose to ignore it in order to make your point. Your position would be much better served by acknowledging that people have set forth such arguments, you just don't find them persuasive.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There's always going to be unreasonable doubt, like people who insist man has never ventured onto the moon. And sometimes unreasonable doubt becomes the prevailing opinion, like the doubt that Saddam had stopped his pursuit WMDs which drove popular support for the invasion of Iraq. That said, I've yet to find a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a case for reasonable doubt for the convicted. Have you? If so, please share.

As to the "reasonable doubt" issue raised here, yes, I have found a "comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes a case for reasonable doubt" - mine! Without rehashing old information, after extensive reading and studying ("comprehensive analysis"), I see no evidence or information that convinces me "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is the standard that should have been met in the original trials) that Damien, Jason and Jessie killed Christopher, Michael and Steven. In the absence of any evidence or information proving guilt, I conclude that they are not guilty.

Were exactly can one find this trove of evidence which you allude to? Granted, I've read a spattering of arguments from the defense in various places, and seen those in the movies and their 2007 conference, but if the defense has taken the time to compile all their all their evidence for people to review, then I'd like to do so.

Well, the WM3 Blackboard provides analysis of evidence, theories about the crime and, in short, intelligent discussion of this sad case. However, as I have said before and as has been pointed out by others, there are many reasons why the defense doesn't want to make public all the information they have. Alerting the real killer of what they know is only one reason, but an important one. However, I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears as some people are convinced that, just because an Internet site has "truth" in its title, it is telling the truth. Sorry, but I don't believe that.

The real problem now is Ellington. It is his call whether or not the case is reopened. Even though he has additional information (it's not technically evidence because it hasn't been presented in court - because Ellington won't reopen the case), he refuses to act. Some people say it's because he doesn't feel that the information he's been given warrants reopening the case. (I don't understand why a letter he received over a year ago that purports to know of someone who confessed to these crimes wasn't sufficient to warrant at least investigation, but it wasn't.) People who wish to believe that Ellington doesn't reopen the investigation for this reason are free so to do. However, I and many other people feel differently. The tide has turned, even in Arkansas. Ellington is an elected official, and, as such, he will have to answer to the people of Arkansas for his inaction. Time will tell what happens, but, unfortunately for Ellington and the State of Arkansas, the Alford pleas didn't make Lorri Davis, or this case, go away.