New to this case and new to the forum

[Userid]

@Userid
yes, there was a foreign lace. ok, then they were not all cut. i should apologize, i was writing all per memory. i am not trying to be obnoxious or pompous here, my memory did not exactly improve over the years.

you won't be able to change my opinion, and i won't be able to change yours. i had countless passionate discussions with non-supporters... but guess what, i don't wanna do it anymore... the 500.. the candle wax.. the lake knife.. the confessions.. i am tired of it and it seems like warming up old soup. i might be completely wrong with all this... sure, wrong all the way and they did it, but it doesn't matter cause the case is dead.

really, i respect your opinion, but, i came to a conclusion years ago, and that won't change esp. since there was no more activity, new evidence or anything since they got out, that could lead to a change of mind.

No problem, I understand. That's fine -- but I'm not trying to "change your opinion." I don't really care if you agree with me or not, in all honesty. I'm just trying to keep the facts as accurate as I can for other people (such as Alyssa Edwards) who are new to this case, so they can draw their own conclusion, based on accurate information. I think it's important to keep things as accurate as possible for anyone who comes across this case in the future, because I feel that if we can do that, we could one day find out the truth. I'm sorry if that came across as argumentative (not that I haven't been argumentative before with others; I'm just trying to turn a new leaf).

 

[leslievernon]

sure... i should have checked the facts again, at callahans (if that site still exists)

it's just frustrating to argue who's more deranged.. sometimes someone who kills doesn't even seem deranged... and there was sooo much talking in that community at that time.

but you made me curious... what's your conclusion to all this? (Userid)

 

[dogmatica]

Update on my progress: currently working my way through the “500” documents. Well this confirms what I already thought, Damien Echols is one sick and twisted individual .

What are supporters thoughts on the “500” ? How do they feel about Damien when they read that he attempted to gouge the eyes out of a class mate, admitted to drinking human blood and stating it made him feel like a God, planned on having a son with his gf and then sacrificing the baby and threading to cut his mothers throat ?? And I’m not even half way through these documents.

I’ve also read some of his arrest documentation, red flags going up when I’m reading that he thinks that whoever committed with the murders would feel happy about it and that 1 boy was probably “cut up more than the others”

Was there actually unidentiified urine found in the boys ?

There are 2 approaches supporters take with the 500 (or 2 I've heard a lot anyway).

1. "These are just typical angsty teenage boy behaviors" (they're not)
2. "Just because someone does all these things doesn't mean they are a child killer"

In other words, they downplay it or sweep it under the rug. The 500 is MASSIVELY relevant and important. Echols was a psychotic, dangerous and violent person. My guess would be that he's been on antipsychotic meds for a long time now.

 

[dogmatica]

never said there was a smoking gun.

"reddish beard hair".... you can give me population % all you want.
how much do you know about hobbs?

look i am not excusing myself when i say this is very long ago, but i watched EVERYTHING, literally everything that man had to say regarding that day... and it stinks. and he had more reason to kill his stepson (ergo his friends too cause they witnessed it) than any of the wm3.

Your baseless opinions on Hobbs have nothing to do with the guilt of the WM3. You have, as most supporters do, completely ignored the glaring evidence that's points the the guilt of the WM3 and basically said "yeah but Hobbs!!!!"

You've got nothing.

 

[leslievernon]

yeah, echols was f*ed up, is now even more f*ed up, i mean.. yes. that's my honest opinion.

but what about jason baldwin? would you say the same thing about him? if you believe jessies account then you MUST believe that he is a sicko too. otherwise he didn't do it. they all didn't do it.

 

[dogmatica]

@Userid
yes, there was a foreign lace. ok, then they were not all cut. i should apologize, i was writing all per memory. i am not trying to be obnoxious or pompous here, my memory did not exactly improve over the years.

you won't be able to change my opinion, and i won't be able to change yours. i had countless passionate discussions with non-supporters... but guess what, i don't wanna do it anymore... the 500.. the candle wax.. the lake knife.. the confessions.. i am tired of it and it seems like warming up old soup. i might be completely wrong with all this... sure, wrong all the way and they did it, but it doesn't matter cause the case is dead.

really, i respect your opinion, but, i came to a conclusion years ago, and that won't change esp. since there was no more activity, new evidence or anything since they got out, that could lead to a change of mind.

That's true - no new evidence...as in, no exculpatory evidence the WM3 claimed they had and would present at a re-trial. But of course -they did no such thing. Instead, they plead guilty. Their defense lawyers approached the state with the Alford Plea. Instead of showing the world the exculpatory evidence, they plead out. And the fact that no new evidence has come forward doesn't support the innocence of the WM3, rather, it glaringly shows they have ZERO exculpatory evidence, and nothing has come out to indicate anything other than the fact that the WM3 are guilty of this crime.

 

[dogmatica]

yeah, echols was f*ed up, is now even more f*ed up, i mean.. yes. that's my honest opinion.

but what about jason baldwin? would you say the same thing about him? if you believe jessies account then you MUST believe that he is a sicko too. otherwise he didn't do it. they all didn't do it.

Balwdin is a sadistic child murderer.

 

[leslievernon]

oh man... good to see the non-supporters alive and well after so many years.. that was a compliment actually.

i don't know, look, these are some of the things that this SUSPECT did:
broke into a neighbor's appartment, attacked her under the shower.
shot his brother in law in the stomach with one of these bullets.. that cause massive damage.
allegations of child abuse, his own daughter.
was the last one to search the woods in the early morning hours.
has no alibi.
was never questioned.

that's what you ignore.

we are talking about a guy with no hesitance to get violent and who had a relationship to one of the victims. i mean... am i so far off, is this so far-fetched..? no.

 

[dogmatica]

oh man... good to see the non-supporters alive and well after so many years.. that was a compliment actually.

i don't know, look, these are some of the things that this SUSPECT did:
broke into a neighbor's appartment, attacked her under the shower.
shot his brother in law in the stomach with one of these bullets.. that cause massive damage.
allegations of child abuse, his own daughter.
was the last one to search the woods in the early morning hours.
has no alibi.
was never questioned.

that's what you ignore.

we are talking about a guy with no hesitance to get violent and who had a relationship to one of the victims. i mean... am i so far off, is this so far-fetched..? no.

He's not a suspect. There are no other suspects. The WM3 were convicted, TWICE and plead guilty. You could find a bunch of people all over the place that are scum like Hobbs...what you're failing to understand is that that means nothing in regards to this case. There's zero evidence against him.

When you say "you will never convince me"...that doesn't make your case strong or even relevant. That shows exactly what the supporter mindset is. If there was any evidence whatsoever that the WM3 are innocent, or that Hobbs was guilty, I'd devour it. Eat it right up and admit I was wrong. That's the difference between you and me. You, on the other hand, have all the evidence in front of you, and you've (claimed, anyway) to read it all and studied it. Yet you still say "you'll never convince me otherwise". Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.

 

[dogmatica]

The reason there are still "non supporters" being vocal is because Echols is still out there, making money and enjoying his pseudo celebrity status - on the backs of the 3 little boys he and 2 other people murdered. He walks into rooms and receives hoots and hollers and has worshipers and fans that gush all over him. And the ONLY reason for any of that, is that he and 2 other monsters brutally tortured and slaughtered 3 8 year old children. It's beyond appalling.

leslievernon - are you still holding out for that exculpatory evidence he claimed he was going to show the world? Or have you given up on that yet?

 

[leslievernon]

i say this because i have, even with my memory holes here, i know... read into this.. callahans up and down, petitions, rulings, lab reports... and came to my conclusion after 5 years of doing so.

and please, let's just stay friendly with each other. we are.. but, just as a reminder.

 

[leslievernon]

@dogmatica
yes, i was a bit disappointed i admit, when there should have been things to come, like it was said in the documentary "West of Memphis".... and, by 2012, 2013, 2014.. never came. yes. but that could have been out of reasons i don't know. i knew there were reports that were redacted... some testings of something on the rise.. i really cannot remember anymore specifically.. well.

but have you ever asked yourself WHY in the world they would let those 3 child killers, as they say they are, out of prison... even after 18 years?

be honest:
would you let them out?

 

[dogmatica]

@dogmatica
yes, i was a bit disappointed i admit, when there should have been things to come, like it was said in the documentary "West of Memphis".... and, by 2012, 2013, 2014.. never came. yes. but that could have been out of reasons i don't know. i knew there were reports that were redacted... some testings of something on the rise.. i really cannot remember anymore specifically.. well.

but have you ever asked yourself WHY in the world they would let those 3 child killers, as they say they are, out of prison... even after 18 years?

be honest:
would you let them out?

Killers get released from prison all the time. The DA gave their reasons for accepting the deal...I understood why but did not agree with it. I wanted to see Echols get the chair.

I think Echols and Baldwin are the epitome of evil. I think Misskelley is certainly a bad guy, but I think he got caught up, had too much to drink, looked up to Echols and got caught up in the thrill and the pressure of it. I think he was the only one with any remorse and regret - hence he kept confessing and was sobbing all the time when he was at home afterwards. I think he feels guilt still. Echols and Baldwin do not.

 

[leslievernon]

ok, so you think they did it. i have no problem with that.

i think that steven's stepfather caught the kids at their secret hideout in the woods there.. things get out of control, and he had to kill all 3 in order not to get caught. period.

and what looks like mutilation, was done by animals, because the bodies lay hidden, most possibly in a manhole until dark, but still accesable to carnivores.

yeah, call me crazy but now it all comes back to me.. yes. i think it happened like that.

 

[k-mac]

alright, calm down a bit, please.

this is the Nth time i am confronted with everything that you said...

let's get right to the evidence:
1. no DNA from any of the WM3 was found at the scene. ..helpful, actually, if you claim you're innocent.
2. can you tell me exactly which shoelace from which shoe was used to bind which ankle and/or wrist from which victim?

... yes, there we go. that was tough figuring that all out back then but it was a collaborative effort and imo a very valuable one. the state crime lab could not figure out which belonged to which, i mean.. like they cared. the laces were cut, in order to bind up the boys. also important.

a "reddish beard hair", was the only thing found on one of the laces. mtDNA confirmed it was terry hobbs. look at a pic of him during the trial - red hair, red beard.

now i don't say that it had to have come from steven's lace - secondary transfer, i got you - but.... the ice is very thin here - could it be from mike's lace.. from chris' lace... highly interesting, especially when they found no hair from any other parent.

you put that strong piece of evidence together with everything else we know about this suspect - a suspect that NEVER was a suspect for the WMPD, a guy who was NEVER asked by police until 14 f*ing years after the crime.....

why would they ignore a stepfather like that?

this guy had a violent temper, hated his own son (and vice versa) and HAD a window of opportunity on may 5th - don't believe me - read the affidavit of his good pal david jacoby, who was with him some of the time during the search, but not all the time... hobbs thought he had an alibi through jacoby, but jacoby f*ed his alibi up, by giving a detailed, credible account of that evening.

hey - don't listen to me, stick with misskelleys outrageous story... the way i see it, this crime was far more realistic.

hair fibre is flimsy evidence against ANYONE who is connected in any way to a victim.

*fun fact.
a woman I DO NOT personally know pulled a long hair off the seat of HER car, had a laugh and a joke with her husband about where the hell did this come from?
and it was established that MY husband carried my hair on his clothes into HER husband car (car pooling) and then HER husband managed to pick it up on his clothes and transfer it into his wifes car that she subsequently found.
TWO VEHICLES I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN with my dna. specifically HAIR FIBRE.

we are in big big trouble with this sort of evidence.

so for this reason terry hobbs hair fibre really has to be moot.
its a justifiable source.

 

[leslievernon]

yes, it is moot. if i understand the word right, then it means up for debate, right.. so, yes.

that was a funny example by the way.. yeah, could happen.
and echols long hair... baldwins mullet, even.... no hairs from them. i know at one point jessie said they just, how do you say, wiped that bank there clean with their shoes.. ergo no evidence from them.

 

[k-mac]

The reason there are still "non supporters" being vocal is because Echols is still out there, making money and enjoying his pseudo celebrity status - on the backs of the 3 little boys he and 2 other people murdered. He walks into rooms and receives hoots and hollers and has worshipers and fans that gush all over him. And the ONLY reason for any of that, is that he and 2 other monsters brutally tortured and slaughtered 3 8 year old children. It's beyond appalling.

leslievernon - are you still holding out for that exculpatory evidence he claimed he was going to show the world? Or have you given up on that yet?

yes
I feel sick on the stomach at the mention of damian echols name.

he is still relishing the notoriety of his horror infliction.
and...now.... has delusional worshippers.
scary stuff.

 

[leslievernon]

he had worshippers all along, k-mac...
i for example did not worship him.. i hardly liked him (in Paradise Lost). but when you begin reading into the case, and you find out that his name was mentioned by somebody right there at the ditch when the bodies were found... you kind of, subconsciously, plant an idea in everybody's head, don't you.. social misfit, psychic problems, unstable, goth-like/satanist, psychotic, maybe.... yeah, that looks good before it even begins. add to that news stories of satanic cults, show some pentagrams on walls.. hell, even i would have said "lock em up".

the police was under immense pressure to solve that and this mentioning of echols name so early was like a blessing. iirc what exactly incriminating did he say when the cops visited him.. echols.. was that may 6th?..7th?

 

[k-mac]

he had worshippers all along, k-mac...
i for example did not worship him.. i hardly liked him (in Paradise Lost). but when you begin reading into the case, and you find out that his name was mentioned by somebody right there at the ditch when the bodies were found... you kind of, subconsciously, plant an idea in everybody's head, don't you.. social misfit, psychic problems, unstable, goth-like/satanist, psychotic, maybe.... yeah, that looks good before it even begins. add to that news stories of satanic cults, show some pentagrams on walls.. hell, even i would have said "lock em up".

the police was under immense pressure to solve that and this mentioning of echols name so early was like a blessing. iirc what exactly incriminating did he say when the cops visited him.. echols.. was that may 6th?..7th?

so your saying with his mental and criminal history he should never have been looked at??
who should have then?
if we can not start at where there is smoke...….

the police had every right to go for him first.
that's where the evidence started.

 

[k-mac]

yes, it is moot. if i understand the word right, then it means up for debate, right.. so, yes.

that was a funny example by the way.. yeah, could happen.
and echols long hair... baldwins mullet, even.... no hairs from them. i know at one point jessie said they just, how do you say, wiped that bank there clean with their shoes.. ergo no evidence from them.

hey les
yes it is a funny example sticks with me!

just fyi moot means its a neutral point