New Damien Echols Interview

[madeleine]

Dunno whether he was forced or manipulated when he confessed to LE for the first time.BUT after reading his confession to his lawyer (Stidham) I am starting to believe he LIKED it (making stuff up,telling sick stories)and that's why he didn't stop .Sorry but this has nothing to do with a low IQ.This particular confession is incredible.It's not believable .Try to re-enact his story.It's a fantasy IMO,he's delusional.There's a big difference between being retarded and being ...sick.I am sorry but my money is on nr.2.Now I understand why his defence was a low IQ .He said the reason he held his head down (while the confession tape was being played) during his trial was he was told to.Maybe.I think he was ashamed for his own THOUGHTS.I don't think a normal,sane person could ever make something so sick up,even if knowing the details from the press for ex.Most of the people believe DE was the leader,the sick one,the evil one.He SEEMS a pretty smart,normal boy to me.(despite of the troubles he got into before the murders).So does Jason.Can't say the same thing about Jessie,sorry.Maybe I am wrong and they are all 3 cold blooded killers,dunno.What I just said has more to do with my gut feeling and me studying their behavior and what they said.

 

[swelters]

He's def. No hero, he's a child killing murderer.

Why, because he's 'creepy' and your gut feeling on him isn't good?

Get a handle on your kneejerk emotional reactions before posting

 

[Cappuccino]

strange question,I know, is it possible that Jessie is telling the truth re what he witnessed and his involvement BUT the other two killers were not Echols and Baldwin but someone else?there are some things that made me think of this...

Re confessions....a lot of those geez....one thing I am kinda sure of though...I don't buy Michael Carson's story....don't know about the rest of them,will study them further...

That's not a strange question at all, its perfectly logical. I suspect any thinking person who's read up on this case has, at some point, wondered if Jessie was guilty and lied about his co-murderers identities. Indeed, the legal system itself is set up to take account of that possibility, that's why he had to be tried separately.

Michael Carson was never credible, I never believed him even when I thought they were guilty. I think the only reason nons still clutch at that straw is because the case against Jason Baldwin is so weak that they need every straw.

 

[madeleine]

That's not a strange question at all, its perfectly logical. I suspect any thinking person who's read up on this case has, at some point, wondered if Jessie was guilty and lied about his co-murderers identities. Indeed, the legal system itself is set up to take account of that possibility, that's why he had to be tried separately.

Michael Carson was never credible, I never believed him even when I thought they were guilty. I think the only reason nons still clutch at that straw is because the case against Jason Baldwin is so weak that they need every straw.

btw,did you see terry's reaction when jessie's verdict was announced?he looked like he just swallowed a camel...doesn't mean anything,it's just a feeling I had when I saw it but to me it looked like a huge "whew" ....I could be wrong of course,maybe I am a bit biased cause I find him to be one of the top suspects in this case (jessie as well)

 

[iluvmua]

btw,did you see terry's reaction when jessie's verdict was announced?he looked like he just swallowed a camel...doesn't mean anything,it's just a feeling I had when I saw it but to me it looked like a huge "whew" ....I could be wrong of course,maybe I am a bit biased cause I find him to be one of the top suspects in this case (jessie as well)

TH has never been considered a suspect and still isn't and thanks to the WM3 Alford plea, they (LE) will not be out searching for the real killer(s).

It's pretty much over.

None of the parents have ever been considered suspects.

 

[madeleine]

TH has never been considered a suspect and still isn't and thanks to the WM3 Alford plea, they (LE) will not be out searching for the real killer(s).

It's pretty much over.

None of the parents have ever been considered suspects.

@bold
I know and personally I find that plea BS....first of all,if they are innocent that plea blocks a further investigation.second,it didn't clear their names.(but after so many years in prison maybe they don't care)...

re other people never been considered suspects,I think that was a mistake.(especially when it comes to family members....abusive family members....Byers admits to spanking Chris with a belt before the murders,TH's alibi/timeline stinks....IMO enough to look into it if you REALLY wanna solve this case as a cop)

 

[madeleine]

the WM3 definitely weren't the only ones who fit the profile of the person/persons who did this. (crime scene,victimology,location,timeline,etc)

 

[EntreNous]

Any educated, responsible and intelligent investigation will first look at those closest to victims who are minors. LE in West Memphis did not. What a damn shame. As it stands, their egos were/are far more important than any justice for those three little boys. Further, it is shocking to me, those who will fight, argue, and berate anyone in favor of any investigation from this point forward.

It seems to me that if justice really were important for CB, SB and MM, in the minds of folks who believe in JM's, DE's & JB's guilt, they would put their money where their mouths are and either work to prove TH's innocence or do their own research to find physical evidence against JM, DE & JB.

Three little boys are dead, and a killer(s) is out there roaming the streets. If it were JM, DE & JB who committed this heinous act against those children, it would only be logical that their deaths were something of enjoyment to them since the boys were strangers. I don't believe the boys came upon the three teens in the woods and saw something they shouldn't have. What could they have seen that would merit their deaths? A satanic ritual? By Damien's own admission, he was a dumb kid who liked to weird people out. At that time he would have probably relished it if the boys ran and told what they saw. Remember, Damien was looking for attention. If it were something else, like rape or murder, where is that crime or victim? What could they have been up to that would have caused them go after the boys? Playing Dungeons and Dragons? Had they been there and up to something, those little boys would have been Damien's best advertisement. It simply doesn't reason out and there is no physical evidence to put them there. If JM, DE & JB did actually kill them, would it also not stand to reason they have to potential to do it again? Since what they were convicted of was basically satanic pleasure murders? After all, there is a big difference between pleasure killings and rage & subsequent cover-up killings. A rage & cover-up killer is really only a threat to those he knows, those he feels have wronged him. It also requires multiple victims. A pleasure killer will kill randomly. While both have the potential to kill again, (as one has massive anger control and management issues while the other likely does not), it seems logical to me that the latter would be the prolific killer. That which gives up pleasure, we will seek to do again and again.

One would think, if three men who are believed to fit the profile of thrill/pleasure killers were wrongfully released from prison there would be a backlash of epic proportions by not only those who worked to convict them and keep them imprisoned, but by the community at large. Where is the outrage? Where are the television specials on FOX news and their affiliates? Where are the organized groups working on this? Where are the outcries from Burnett? Where is Gitchell? Surely they would be on their old pal, Mike Huckabee's program, demanding justice!

Save for a scant few who personally attack anyone who might understand the facts of this case, statistical probabilities, personality types and criminal profiles, there is essentially no backlash. There is no widespread outrage because there is ample evidence of professional misconduct and a botched investigation from the very beginning.

I quite enjoyed reading the interview. I'm glad to hear he is learning what it's like to be treated like a regular human being and not a spectacle or an animal. Sounds like he is adjusting remarkably well after decades of abuse. It definitely looks like he's finally getting some nutrition as he has filled out from the emaciated figure in video footage from his release. I can't imagine what adjustment from decades in standard maximum security prison, let alone death row must be like.

I come from a long line of LE on both sides of my family as does my husband. From PD, Sheriff, TBI and the courts. Whenever this case comes up their attitudes are...:furious:, :banghead: and :curses: This case is pretty infuriating.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I will watch Damien's time out of prison with great interest, we shall see who he is by what he does. I am more and more convinced of his guilt as time goes on however, and I do not believe he was raped on death row.

When I conducted one of the first death row interviews with Echols in 1995, I noted that he seemed to enjoy the attention. Was it true, I asked. He grinned.

"Yes,'' he nodded. That always struck me as peculiar. Here was a man on death row, awaiting execution, and one of his prevailing thoughts was that he likes the attention?

Echols told me something else equally disturbing. He claimed he'd been repeatedly raped — as many as 40 times — by the man in the next cell, Mark Edward Gardner, who has since been executed. Echols made similar allegations in letters he mailed to various public officials. Prison officials investigated his claims and found them meritless. Echols doesn't mention any of this in "Life After Death," which includes several beautifully written chapters on the cruelty and depravity in prison. Those chapters make a number of other accusations, though, including that Echols was once choked by the warden, beaten until he "pissed blood'' and repeatedly kept in isolation, where temperatures would reach 120 degrees. In addition, he also told the Jonesboro Sun two years ago that he was repeatedly raped by guards.

"His claims are absolute nonsense, and he knows it,'' Dina Tyler, spokeswoman for the Arkansas Department of Correction, said in an e-mail. Echols was on punitive status just once — for 16 days in September 1994, Tyler said. While there is only a fan system in isolation and no air conditioning, the average high temperature that month was 84 degrees. "So I feel certain that it did not reach 120 where Echols was housed,'' she said.

"... I think he's making up things to sell more copies of his book. It's a shame, too. Because his story is probably compelling enough without adding embellishments that are so obviously false,'' she said.

Balanced article however, the reporter takes the stance that the boys are innocent but that Damien's own behaviour is why the boys were viewed as potential suspects, is why they were charged / tried and convicted. She criticises Echols for refusing to take responsibility for this, and for his continued lies.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/oct/07/memoirs-missing-element/

 

[terekaugelt]

Sorry, I posted this twice - I am new to the forum and the first post was not visible. So the real post comes next. I would delete the post but cannot find a way to do so.

 

[terekaugelt]

Just a few words about Terry Hobbs. Right to the point: if one is really, really angry with one's stepson (particularly as a competitor for his mother's- your wife's attention and time), it makes FAR more sense to kill three boys as against your own stepson alone. Cold calculation: if only your stepson is killed, attention will focus on you. If three are killed - it might be a serial killer, a Satanic killer, whoever ...

There are quite a lot of cases when the perp stages a serial killer case while actually being only after one of the victims. As Chesterton would say: where do you hide a pebble - on the shore among similar pebbles, where do you hide a leaf - among other autumn leaves. Manhole theory or no manhole theory, we have a situation where Stephen was invited inside a closed space (I personally feel that it was not a manhole but just his house). The pertinent witnesses are credible - they went to church on one specific day for years, so they could not mix up the date. Also, they had never been questioned (the police neglected door-to-door questioning in that area), so their contention that they never thought TH had not told the police that he saw the boys at 6 p.m. is totally credible. So we have a situation where TH invites Steve in - and probably invites the other two in, too. Once confined in a locked space, they are helpless.

But as concerns the question why the three instead of just Stephen - the answer seems obvious. If one is enraged enough at one's stepson for "stealing" the attention and love of one's spouse, and wants to get rid of the stepson, the most logical way is to hide him among three victimized boys. The murderer WAS logical in other ways - using three different (slaughterhouse) knots instead of one (I have a separate post about this but I'll repeat the essence at the end of this post), carrying the victims in the best way (the way hogs are carried), hiding all pertinent objects (clothes, bicycles - remember it was just an outward chance he did not count on that the foot of one of the victims remained out of water, otherwise it might have taken days and days to find them and he would probably have a chance to remove them somewhere further away where they would never be found, etc.), so it goes without saying that he would be logical here too.

Was TH really enraged at his stepson? Stephen was reported by his relatives to actually want to kill his "father". Their relations were very far from even neutral.

Even John Douglas thought it must have been "disciplining" (e.g. torturing) going too far, i.e. something unpremeditated. But what if it was actually premeditated, not for that particular day but for a day when a convenient opportunity would arise? Making your own "son" (actually, of course, stepson) take off his clothes, etc., would fit with a theory of "disciplining" gone wrong. (I use the inverted commas to indicate that this is not a normal way of disciplining any child - I certainly did not use any corporeal punishment in raising my children and I do not think this is considered normal in this day and age, anyway). But whatever one means by disciplining, making sons of other people take off their clothes goes beyond any acceptable form of "disciplining".

So what was happening once the boys where confined to a closed space was living out a rage accumulated in a long time. One does not order other people's children to take their clothes off and hope to get away with it. So the fate of the three boys was absolutely sealed then - though, as I said, probably determined long before, when TH decided that getting rid of his "son" would work best if his friends were also involved.

Now, this is ALL speculation. I am not in any sense legally accusing TH of the crime. The DNA is definitely not conclusive in his case. But thinking of possible scenarios is not libel, so this is my theory.

Finally, I'll repeat the refutation of the "three knots - three killers" theory. As in a previous post, I am plagiarizing another poster on some forum that I cannot remember. The gist of his or her argument - with which I wholeheartedly agree - is that average boys know just one basic knot (this applies to women, too, I know just one knot). The poster then asked everybody to picture a situation where a school team are asked to tie their shoelaces - they would all use the identical basic knot. To even know of more knots takes special expertise, something that anybody working in a slaughterhouse would have: many different knots are used in a slaughterhouse. Now the perp might well have reasoned: the more knots, the more perpetrators of the crime, and used his expertise to the purpose. And, ironically, he did succeed. The myth of "three knots equals three perpetrators" took firm hold in everybody's mind. While in reality, three knots means, in all likelihood, one perp with knowledge of multiple knots.

 

[kyleb]

There are quite a lot of cases when the perp stages a serial killer case while actually being only after one of the victims.

Would you please provide some specific examples of cases which you find particularly relevant to murders at hand?

Stephen was invited inside a closed space

If you have proof to back this claim, please share.

The pertinent witnesses are credible - they went to church on one specific day for years, so they could not mix up the date.

Over the sixteen years between the murders and when they came forward: what could prevent them from mixing up the day by a week or more, if not mixing up where they were going and/or what time the left? And just to cover the realm of alternative possibilities, particularly given how much effort has been put into freeing the men who were convinced of the murders: what could have prevented others from manipulating the three purported recently discovered witnesses into fabricating their story?

the police neglected door-to-door questioning in that area

If you can provide any evidence to back this clam beyond the affidavits of the supposed witnesses, please share.

The poster then asked everybody to picture a situation where a school team are asked to tie their shoelaces - they would all use the identical basic knot.

Sure, aside from the fact that some people will go left over right while others will go right over left, but that's because there's basically just one knot for tying commonly used for one's shoes. If you instead ask a group of 16-18 year old young men to hog tie up 8 year old boys as if they were intending to murder them, it's rather doubtful that they would all use the same knot, let alone all use the same knot commonly used for tying one's shoes.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Poor Terry .. You would think people genuinely in prison for years for a crime they didn't commit would take pause before accusing someone else with very little evidence to support it.

 

[kyleb]

Well that surely depends on the integrity of the individuals in question. I mean if you back an animal into a corner, its going to fight back with anything it can come up with, regardless of whether or not the animal is genuinely responsible for whatever prompted you to back it into that corner. When it comes to humans, some of us are more prone to behaving like animals than others. In that regard, while I know Echols and Baldwin have spouted poorly reasoned accusations at Terry Hobbs, and John Mark Byers before that: I don't recall seeing Misskelley ever engage in such depravity, and despite the fact that I consider all three guilty of the murders they were convicted of beyond any reasonable doubt, I do have to give Misskelley credit for not stooping of the level of Echols, Baldwin, and so many of their supporters.

 

[terekaugelt]

My post, as I underlined, was speculation, not an explicit accusation. Cases of hiding the real target among others have been documented in the UK. You can google for these yourself. However, the logic of hiding the real target among others is universal.

There are affidavits, e.g. the one by Jacoby - very explicit, dismantles all of TH's alibi. Very easy to find on the Internet. But I do not think this is at all the real point of your post. Rather, I think your requirement for affidavits is an obvious ruse. The information that you require affidavits for comes from the latest documentaries. Mostly. You have chosen to disbelieve all of it. You may even choose to disbelieve the recantations of the prosecution's key witnesses (Hutchenson, Carson) - they are there, they repent, they ask for forgiveness - but there are no affidavits.

However, legally, affidavits are no better than recantations in a film - in court, what counts is a witness who can be cross-examined. You MAY remember that Jessie Miskelley refused to be such a witness and his "confessions" were thrown out of court. You CANNOT be unaware that the defence has unearthed jury deliberation documents where one point had been hidden - and also the original of the document where the hidden part is revealed and consists in Jessie Miskelley's confession. It has since been revealed that the confession - that the defense had even no chance to contest - played a crucial part in the deliberations of the jury, who otherwise really had no case to convict. So there is a clear double standard here, and I am sure you are quite aware of it. The jury misconduct issue was first thrown out because "it came too late" (talk about technicalities - this time not getting people out of prison but keeping innocent people in prison and on Death Row).

As regards affidavits form Carson and Hutchenson, you are certainly aware that perjury in a capital case may be punishable by death. So what they are giving, though obviously the truth, has no legal standing - just as any affidavits by them would not have. Had the new trial taken place, these people would probably simply have refused to turn up as witnesses - something that Scott Ellington clearly referred to (when he said at the new trial he would have "handed his *advertiser censored* to him"). So Ellington warned the defendants that it was in his power to delay the process for years (i.e., the judge - fortunately a new judge who recognised a miscarriage of justice had taken place - just listen to his comments after the Alford plea - available on youtube - would have granted a new trial but the State would have appealed this decision, and so on and so forth - dragging the whole thing on for years). WM3 were thus in a hostage situation - they might actually win, but it would take years and years, with Damien on Death Row all the time. As Damien aptly put it, the essentially did what Jessie had done in the first place - sign a false confession because that was the only way to "get out" of the situation.

Affidavits can be wrong, etc. As to whether door-to-door questioning was carried out in that area, Mitchell was asked the question in "West of Memphis" and refused to answer. Why? Do you really believe that he did not remember?! In such a super high profile case? The fact that Terry Hobbs was not questioned at the time has been definitively corroborated by a hasty - first - interview that took place when the defence had pointed out that he had been totally omitted. This much is proved and documented. The fact that the neighborhood was not combed has turned up in so many places that I simply do not have the time or wish to search for exact references. Incidentally, do you really believe the neighborhood was questioned door-to-door and just Pamela and Terry Hobbs were missed?! Mitchell refused to answer ANY questions related to the case. Do you really believe he mistrusted his memory? In the most important case of his life, one might say? Or perhaps he knew his rights very well and used them to the utmost. He definitely knew better than poor Jessie Miskelley ...

As regards Jessie Miskelley not pointing his finger at anybody - this is not proof of superior morals. My husband is a psychiatrist with very many years of experience. He confirms that people with the IQ around 70 should not be taken seriously in ANY criminal proceedings. The fact that he WAS is a scandal in itself - our "dear" Judge Burnett at his best ... Jessie does not take any interest in TH simply because he does not take any interest in ANYTHING to do with the case. All of it is just far over his head. Look at the Alford pleas - he did not even manage to say the words expected of him coherently - "It is in my interests" had to be added after a significant pause. How anybody can take anything the poor thing has said seriously is beyond me. No, actually it is not beyond me: there are very clear motives for people who rely on Miskelley. If one is after the blood of Echols, it is in their interest to disregard what an IQ of 70 actually means. And if one has to "prove" that anybody even thinking of TH as a possible suspect is morally degraded and ethically inferior, the lack of interest on the part of a mentally challenged member of the WM3 is welcome "proof" that there is an ethically superior member of the three that has the "integrity" not to look at any possible suspects.

What I presented is a speculation of how things might have happened if one believes what people say in the documentaries (instead of believing the witnesses and mail-order-PhD experts at the trials - whom I happen to totally disbelieve). All of this basically comes down to credibility.

So it seems that you choose to believe Hutchenson and Carson at the trials rather than the same people in the documentaries, and disbelieve witnesses who claim that they had always thought the police KNEW TH had seen the boys that day - and who were not likely to mix up the time since going to church is a very regular activity that takes place at the same time and on the same day throughout years. In that case no affidavit or even statement under oath would convince you. Even asking for them, as I said, is a ruse.

Finally, you cite possible "manipulation" of the new witnesses. Do you honestly believe that Hutchenson with her stories of "esbat" was not manipulated by hopes of the reward (two witnesses who testify that she had mentioned the reward) and also the very real dismissal of credit card fraud charges?

For the matter, do you still believe her esbat story in general?! I mean, just come on!

Or do you believe that a jailhouse snitch had no motive for his "testimony"? Actually, Dennis Riordan in the presentation of the new evidence (still on youtube, very easy to find, just type in West Memphis Three defense) stated quite unequivocally that using UNCORROBORATED jailhouse witness testimony (as Carson's was) in court is prosecutorial misconduct. Alas, in the general satanic panic prevalent at that time, it worked.

Now I am coming to the most important part of the post. ALL this perjury (Hutchenson's. Carson's, and many more) took place at ACTUAL trials and led to a death sentence and two life sentences without parole. Mine was nothing but a speculation and I even stressed thatDNA evidence against TH is by no means conclusive. So speaking of ethics, "stooping to the level of ...", "integrity" etc, phulease ...

I just still believe the scenario is internally consistent and also realistic.

As to the knots, why would they use different knots when tying up the boys as opposed to tying their shoes. I, for one, know just one knot which I use in tying up my shoes, tying up parcels, etc. Why would I use different knots?

But anyway, my post was not meant to elicit heated replies. The very fact that it did indicates, to me, an insecurity on the part of the "nons". I just laid out a scenario that to me makes sense. I might add that defense attorneys emphasised that though the evidence is not sufficient to convict TH, the LE should at least look at the person and use their powers of deposition, etc, to investigate him. Defense - nor anybody else, including you and me - do not have the requisite powers, as you well know.

 

[kyleb]

Cases of hiding the real target among others have been documented in the UK. You can google for these yourself.

Perhaps, but I can't answer my curiosity as to what cases you find particularly relevant to murders at hand. Am I to take it you can't answer that question either?

Rather, I think your requirement for affidavits is an obvious ruse.

That's comical considering the fact that I didn't request any affidavits, but rather requested "evidence to back [your "the police neglected door-to-door questioning in that area"] clam beyond the affidavits of the supposed witnesses". The affidavits I refer to are the ones from Jamie Clark Ballard, Brandy Clark Williams, and Deborah Moyer, all three of which were submitted years prior to the movies you reference.

You may even choose to disbelieve the recantations of the prosecution's key witnesses (Hutchenson, Carson)

I believe the recantations of Hutchenson and Carson around as much as I believe their previous claims, which is to say: all are dubious at best.

You CANNOT be unaware that the defence has unearthed jury deliberation documents where one point had been hidden - and also the original of the document where the hidden part is revealed and consists in Jessie Miskelley's confession.

I am aware of this and consider it a distributing example of jury misconduct. However, I don't follow your claim that it demonstrates "clear double standard", and disagree with your claim that there was otherwise case to convict. As for technicalities, they can work for or against either side, and it would be a double standard to handle that otherwise.

Mitchell was asked the question in "West of Memphis" and refused to answer. Why? Do you really believe that he did not remember?!

I suspect he didn't trust the filmakers to portray his answers accurately.

Incidentally, do you really believe the neighborhood was questioned door-to-door and just Pamela and Terry Hobbs were missed?!

I know for a fact that Pamela Hobbs was interviewed, but I've yet to see enough evidence to determine whether or not door-to-door questioning of her neighborhood took place.

people with the IQ around 70 should not be taken seriously in ANY criminal proceedings.

Are you unaware of the fact that test score you allude to was derived after Miskelley's lawyer informed him that a lower score is likely to result in a lighter sentence? Regardless, from what I've seen of Misskelley, I suspect that an untainted IQ test would put him at around 85.

Look at the Alford pleas - he did not even manage to say the words expected of him coherently - "It is in my interests" had to be added after a significant pause.

I suspect it was a sense of shame which caused him to stumble there, not lack of sufficient intellect.

What I presented is a speculation of how things might have happened if one believes what people say in the documentaries (instead of believing the witnesses and mail-order-PhD experts at the trials - whom I happen to totally disbelieve).

This is what's known as a false dichotomy, something I make a conscious effort to avoid.

witnesses who claim that they had always thought the police KNEW TH had seen the boys that day - and who were not likely to mix up the time since going to church is a very regular activity that takes place at the same time and on the same day throughout years.

You're simply repeating yourself here rather than addressing the questions I asked you in response to the first time you presented this argument.

Finally, you cite possible "manipulation" of the new witnesses. Do you honestly believe that Hutchenson with her stories of "esbat" was not manipulated by hopes of the reward (two witnesses who testify that she had mentioned the reward) and also the very real dismissal of credit card fraud charges?

As I said above, I consider what I've heard from both Hutchenson and Carson to be dubious as best. However, I most certainly don't believe that two wrongs make a right.

So speaking of ethics, "stooping to the level of ...", "integrity" etc, phulease ...

I was speakingof the fact that not only do I not recall Misskelley ever joining in the poorly reasoned finger pointing at Terry Hobbs, but also that which has been directed at John Mark Byers.

I, for one, know just one knot which I use in tying up my shoes, tying up parcels, etc. Why would I use different knots?

Different knots are better suited for different purposes. For instance, have you never tied a trash bag for which didn't have enough slack for a shoelace knot?

But anyway, my post was not meant to elicit heated replies.

Nor did it, but rather it prompted a some honest questions which you've yet to answer. If you'd like to continue this conversations, please make a conscious effort to provide direct and concise answers to the all the questions I've asked you, in reciprocation of the fact that I have taken the time to do as much for you.

 

[terekaugelt]

"If you'd like to continue this conversations, please make a conscious effort to provide direct and concise answers to the all the questions I've asked you, in reciprocation of the fact that I have taken the time to do as much for you".

My specialty is linguistics, in particular pragmatics and also, to a great extent, forensic linguistics. I happen to be a full university professor in these areas.

Let's take the first part: there is a subdivision of Pragmatics called Politeness Theory, which, among other things, deals with cross-cultural differences in politeness. One of the findings of this discipline is that, unlike in many other languages, "please" at the beginning of a request in English is NOT a politeness marker but a (fairly impolite) REQUEST/COMMAND marker. Many of our NS informants said they would use "open the window" or "open the window, please", but NEVER "Please open the window" as this is openly impolite.

You use this "Please provide ..., please give", etc throughout your posts, unlike ANYBODY else on this forum. I'll be using your posts as a corpus of impolite "please" with my students (anonymously, of course, so it is fully ethical). You are a novice, just like I am, on the forum, but you manage to sound imperious - and the infamous "please" is definitely part of it. I do not think it is wholly unconscious, either. To me, it sounds like a very conscious attempt at manipulation and taking the upper hand. I am not going to submit to this.

The ultimate irony with this "please" is your last paragraph, in answer to my claim that "But anyway, my post was not meant to elicit heated replies". So your answer is, verbatim, "nor did it, but rather it prompted a some honest questions which you've yet to answer. If you'd like to continue this conversations, please make a conscious effort to provide direct and concise answers to the all the questions I've asked you, in reciprocation of the fact that I have taken the time to do as much for you".

"nor did I" - strictly speaking, it refers to nothing in my post. "my post was not meant to elicit heated replies" - "nor did I" - this is not meaningful conversation.

"please make a conscious effort to provide direct and concise answers to the all the questions" is impolite according to all native speaker informants (a new article emerging from here, I feel).

"please make a conscious effort to provide direct and concise answers to the all the questions I've asked you, in reciprocation of the fact that I have taken the time to do as much for you" - now that is manipulation in its classic, primal textbook form. Essentially what you are doing is trying to induce guilt in me ("in reciprocation of the fact that I have taken the time to do as much for you"). This kind of manipulation is often used in court, too, obviously, hence the need for forensic linguistics.

The presupposition is that I OWE something to you - "in reciprocation of the fact that I have taken the time to do as much FOR you" (emphasis mine). Now you have done nothing FOR me, so there is no need to RECIPROCATE. All you have done is read through my post - great effort, indeed - and command me to "please" give the sources, affidavits, etc.
And this to a post that did not expect ANY responses but just posted a plausible scenario - making it explicit several times that no claim for absolute truth was made. In fact, the original post made this "speculation" part and no claim to ultimate truth part so explicit that, sorry, I have no option but to interpret your ignoring this as conscious manipulation.

I made it clear in my original post that I had a scenario (very much like but slightly different from the manhole theory) that I wanted to get off my chest and out in the open. I did not expect ANY responses for it, least of all a demand for corroborating any part of it with legal instruments. Since I did not expect any responses for it, your claim that your response is something that you did FOR me is utterly ridiculous (though, again, a very potent means of manipulation). And since you did not do anything FOR me, I do not owe anything to you, is that clear? You have done nothing FOR ME. If you value your time so highly that this kind of activity needs acknowledgement and reciprocation, sorry, that's wholly your problem. Nobody forced you to read my post, nor put the questions "where are the affidavits for this" for every second sentence to it.

Now the rest of you post - the part that poses as rational argument - boils down to just one and only one question, the question of CREDIBILITY. For me, the fact that Jessie could not even produce his Alford plea coherently is a clear sign that this person is mentally challenged. (Certainly, in my experience, brighter and smarter students are more articulate, though no one is as inarticulate as Jessie). To you, the same mental clumsiness in performing the simplest of ceremonies, is sign of shame and guilt. I must admit the this interpretation seemed to me so outlandish it took my breath away, but do I have definite proof - of course not. Neither do you!

The defence had potent arguments to show that prosecution witnesses were not credible, and the prosecution can always come up with arguments to show that the defence witnesses are not credible. Defence experts, even at the stage when they did most of the work pro bono, were cross-examined by the prosecution as to their fees (so they were "lying" for their fees - as opposed to the prosecution who could not possibly be lying for their salaries PLUS career prospects, can they?).

The defence, with all the new evidence, were careful to point out that the defence experts got their usual fees instead of working pro bono - because working without pay could be interpreted as being biased, Yet there has been wide-spread speculation on the forums (no, I cannot give the sources because this is not my main field of interest and I have not recorded all the relevant internet sources) that the fact that the defence experts were paid at all biased them. The pay and the resulting bias was part of the prosecution's arguments even during the trial at a time when the defendants were indigents (see callahan). With more money at the disposal of the defence, the question of "buying" the opinion of the experts has been raised at almost every forum and certainly encouraged implicitly and not so implicitly by the State. So the defence is damned is they do (pay) and damned if they don't (pay).

So whatever any side does, credibility can always be questioned. That's what you do throughout your post. I do not see ANY point in answering these issues. for obvious reasons. Your point about Jessie lowering his IQ is amusing to me, in the light of his general academic "achievement" and life story, but if you take it seriously, there is no "objective" way to dispute your belief. You can disbelieve absolutely any witness on any side (or, for that matter, any evidence at all) and there is always at least a 1 per cent chance that you might be right.

The best evidence for this is your treatment of something that cannot be disputed: the recantation by the KEY witnesses of the prosecution. Carson was actually the ONLY witness against Jason, BTW.
So what you do is claim
"As I said above, I consider what I've heard from both Hutchenson and Carson to be dubious as best. However, I most certainly don't believe that two wrongs make a right".
So the perjured testimony that sent people to Death Row is just ONE wrong and the recantation, somehow, is ANOTHER wrong?" Or the fact that there are by now no witnesses against Jason and Damien does not exclude them from the pool of suspects? (In that case, the fact that there are no witnesses against me or you does not exclude US from the pool of suspects - indeed, one can never prove a negative). BUT, this is another well-known form of manipulation - make your opponent do your reasoning for you. "Two wrongs do not make it right" is a statement that does not make respectable sense, and it is not for me to hypothesize meanings that might make the statement sensible.

What it clearly is is a desperate attempt to discard the fact that the KEY evidence on which the defendants were sentenced to life in prison and death has, in fact, been recanted. There has been ONE wrong, and ONE right, and the right has come after the satanic panic has subsided and the witnesses no more have any motive to perjure themselves. So one wrong and one right actually make it right.

I am NOT answering any of your manipulative posts, not because I cannot (this could go on forever) but because I refuse to be manipulated in this way for a second longer. I am not a permanent member of the forum, I registered because I wanted to make public one hypothetical scenario, I have huge respect for people like Compassionate Reader or Nova who are really well acquainted with the case, and with this, I respectfully take my leave.

Reply With Quote

 

[EntreNous]

Poor Terry .. You would think people genuinely in prison for years for a crime they didn't commit would take pause before accusing someone else with very little evidence to support it.

Poor Terry??? Are we talking about the same Terry who broke into his neighbor's home and assaulted her? Are we talking about the same Terry who told his grieving wife to "get over it" only two weeks after her son's murder? Are we talking about the same Terry who beat his wife and shot/killed her brother? Is that the Terry you are referring to?

 

[terekaugelt]

Now this is not a very elegant way to bow out of a forum (to say the least), but there are some points that I feel absolutely need addressing before I leave.

First, I misread "nor did it" as "nor did I" - which makes you seem more incoherent than is fair. "It" obviously means my post. However, may I clarify here that the post was not meant to elicit ANY replies, not just heated ones.

In fact, this forum goes back a long way, and all of the main questions have been dealt with thoroughly. What I did was just suggest a possible speculative alternative to the manhole theory, and I honestly did not expect any replies.

I have been through all of this on a film forum (IMDb, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) which unfortunately deletes old posts. I was quite interested in the subject and found myself posting frequently for three months, long posts at that. Got lots of praise and two very good penpals as a result. But at one point it was clear that the questions, answers and arguments started to repeat themselves to the point where it felt stupid to answer the same questions and contest the same arguments over and over again. So I left, as did my new-found penpals.

The same has happened with this case, except that Websleuths,as far as I am aware, retains all older posts. So Compassionate Reader has answered most questions thoroughly already, as have several other posters (Nova, Entre-Nous, and there are more). They have read all of callahan, I have read almost all but not all, and they have reasoned answers to most if not all of the questions. I have no intention to duplicate them.

What I have done - on another thread - is point out that merely reading documents is not enough, critical reading is necessary (a post you have not answered, interestingly enough). In the post I provide links to a scientific analysis of Jessie's first confession which just impartially dissects the text as to how much information was provided by Jessie spontaneously (very little and all of it wrong) and how much was provided by the interrogator - with Jessie just answering "yes". Now if Jessie were really the type of a normally intelligent person (you even have the audacity to "assess" his "real" IQ, as opposed to what the psychologists found and what is supported by his academic record and his whole lige story) - why on earth would he answer "yes" to all these prompted questions - absolutely in the majority - where all of the information was provided by the interrogator?

And even if his IQ IS higher than 70 (which I do not believe and which you have NO evidence to contest, apart from your own impression), I am sure you have read all the newest literature on false confessions - even people with normal IQ are involved in them. I would probably confess to anything if I did not have access to the toilet for a long time (no, I would not, but this is simply because I have read so much on the subject - I'd rather piss in my pants ) But actually very few people are as informed.

False confessions are a very interesting academic subject which I am sure you are aware of. That they exist and are quite prevalent has been proved by, e.g. the Innocence Project - I may be mistaken but in roughly half of the cases where DNA exonerated people they had confessed to the crime (for sources, go to Google, I hope you know how to use it or other search engines). There is a case where a young man confessed to having killed his fiancee, who turned up a few weeks later - he was still kept in prison for a week, and released without an apology). There was an experiment where the researcher went to a man who had falsely confessed to molesting his daughter. He had NEVER met the daughter but supplied INVENTED new details of the molestation to the poor man (with normal IQ) who almost immediately confessed to them. So if one doubts Jessie's "real" IQ, which I don't, one is still left with false confessions by people with normal IQs. There is AMPLE literature on the subject, which you will be able to find out just by searching False confessions, so do not require anybody on this board to "please provide me with the exact addresses" ...

The length of the interrogation, BTW, is but one factor in producing false confessions: it may take only two hours to convince a person that they have a choice between a false confession and, say, a death penalty. Ample respectable literature about this (the so-called optimal decisions) available on the Internet, so do not ask me to provide the links, you have sufficient IQ to find them on your own.

I would like to point out once more that almost it is impossible to prove the negative (if there is NO DNA of the suspects on the crime site, even when there is DNA of other known and unknown persons, one can always say that whoever is accused just had their DNA washed away - by a VERY selective water - or levitated, or whatever). Strictly speaking, the fact that your own DNA was not found on the crime site, or mine, for that matter, does not exclude us as possible suspects. However, if people who were supposed to be THERE (as per Jessie's "confessions") did not leave ANY DNA, this starts to approach pretty convincing evidence. If Jessie's confession in any of its four forms is correct, the probability that the DNA of none of the defendants was there is pretty slim. As Attorney Dennis Riordan put it, many of his clients have refused DNA to be tested once they understand "this stuff really works". In the case of WM3, if the DNA of even one of them were found, it would, according to Jessie's narrative, implicate all three, they have voraciously gone on with testing absolutely everything. This, again, presumably has no weight with you, since the preconceived notions are so strong.
And finally - this time really finally, or I would turn into a fool who repeats things that are already there - the choice between the witnesses as presented in the two documentaries (Paradise Lost 3 and West of Memphis) and the "witnesses" at the original trials is NOT A FALSE DICHOTOMY. A false dichotomy is a legitimate concept in logic and the field pf logical fallacies, which I am perfectly aware of. The choice between what Vicky Hutchenson said at the trial and what she said when she had no motive to lie (unless you believe the filmmakers paid her huge sums to recant a testimony) or what Carson said at the trial and the heartfelt apology in the film does not in any shape or form qualify as a a false dichotomy - as I am sure you are perfectly aware of. This labelling qualifies as one more obvious attempt at manipulation - and again I am quite sure you are aware of this.
One could, of course, take the stand that ALL witnesses under any circumstances, whether they state something or recant it, are motivated by self-interest (reward money and more lenient treatment in the casts of Hutchenson and Carson at the trial stage, and huge amounts of Peter Jackson's money at the film stage) - but in this case the most honest course would be to refrain from ANY judgment in ANY legal case and admit that witnesses are always unreliable. So discard all witnesses. If one starts cherry-picking, one is by definition biased. I am biased, since I believe the recanting in the films rather than the original trial testimony, but i am not afraid to admit it. Also, the satanic panic is over, so Hutchenson's stories about esbat do sound ridiculous (you have skilfully avoided my question about whether you really believe the esbat stories). Carson has been shown to have got the details from another person (do google this, I do not owe you all the mail addresses) and having had not actual time to listen to such a conversation (the witness was told to make herself scarce during the origianl trial - she is in the documentary and her story is also in "Devil's Knot").
So we have a real dichotomy here - and the very term "false dichotomy" is bandied about by you for a mysterious reason, perhaps to make your case look more intellectual? It is nice of you to avoid false dichotomies in debates, but in this case the notion is clearly not applicable.
I'll now bow out finally, and irreversibly. Which means I am not going to return to the site.
Best regards!

 

[sloane7777]

the WM3 definitely weren't the only ones who fit the profile of the person/persons who did this. (crime scene,victimology,location,timeline,etc)

Terry Hobbs wife ex wife thinks he did it, what was the outcome of the bitemark? I thought the only person the Couldnt exclude was Terry Hobbs