Thanks again for the documents. I did take the opportunity to read through them. Certainly, Echols had issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see anything in the documents that tie Echols to the crimes. They do show a glimpse of his character or make up. Is that a fair statement? Wanting to make sure I didn't miss anything.
New witness !!! Has this been discussed?
- Thread starter claudicici
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Thanks again for the documents. I did take the opportunity to read through them. Certainly, Echols had issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see anything in the documents that tie Echols to the crimes. They do show a glimpse of his character or make up. Is that a fair statement? Wanting to make sure I didn't miss anything.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
No, I'm saying that one should consider those early interview notes along with later statements unless you can provide a legitimate reason for doing otherwise.
Yet the claims you make about statements are inconstant with statements themselves. For instance, you said:
So. you've got Jennifer Bearden off the phone with Echols by around 4:05. However the transcript has Ridge asking Bearden "then around 4:30 you call him at Jason's" to which she answers "right", and then she goes on to explain "we talked about 20 minutes." So, that puts Bearden on the phone with Echols until around 4:50, 45 minutes later than you claimed.
If you go back to the other statements you made claims about, you'll find many more such inconsistencies which your characterizations of them ignore.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
From the Charter Psychological Assessment:
From the Charter Discharge Summery:
From the St. Vincent case file notes:
From the Craighead indecent report:
Did you not see any of that?
Edit: Oh, my bad, you said you don't see anything in the documents which ties Echols to the crimes, by which you surely mean the murders. That is true, and of course they don't as the documents are from months before the murders. However, what they do show is that Damien had a criminal and psychological history which one must consider when pondering the question of if Jones was justified in suspecting Echols might have committed the murders. That's the context in which I posted the documents, now would you please acknowledge them in that context?
If you are trying to convince me that there are inconsistencies contained within the statements, I will grant you that. If you are trying to convince me that all of the statements ultimately have to be considered in order to judge their credibility or what it is they are saying, I will grant you that. If you are trying to convince me that the statements are not to be believed, that's not going to happen at this point. I'll reserve those personal determinations for later down the road when I've read more.
Regarding times, I can only give you my personal take on witnesses accounts of times, and that is I take them with a grain of salt to a certain extent. They are approximations, not exact accounts, unless a person actually looked at a watch. For example, if we got a room full of 100 people and asked them what time the first plane struck the World Trade Center, I bet we get multiple different answers. They will be close for the most part, but not exact. Simply because someone was 20 or 30 minutes off, to me, would not mean the plane did not strike the tower.
Also, regarding your example, it is that kind of questioning that truly causes me to give a witness more leeway. If Ridge were a lawyer in a courtroom and asked that question, the answer he would have gotten would have been "Objection. Mischaracterizes the witnesses testimony."
Bottom line for me, a witness knows the difference between 9 am and noon and the difference between noon and 4, but not so much the difference between 3:30 and 4 so I look to see if they are in the general time frame. What would be nice is if every witness ever interviewed lawyered up first because then the only answer you would get is it was sometime in the afternoon instead of feeling compelled to give a time.
I am curious though, with what appears to be your strong beliefs about inconsistencies and times, do I take that to mean you don't believe Jessie's confession? Might not be the appropriate thread to begin that conversation, but I was curious if you believe that because Jessie gave different times throughout his "confession" does that mean you don't believe him either when he says he was involved?
You can take my comments as they were. I said that the documents seem to give us a glimpse of his personality and make up. Forgive me for asking if there was anything beyond that that I may have missed.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
No, I'm just asking you to stop making inaccurate claims about the statements, and rather stick to addressing what was actually said.
Sure, but when you've got a girl who was likely in school until around 3:00 PM and says the phone calls started "around 3:30 or 4:00", and then says the last call started "between 4:15 and 5, something like that, 5, 5:30". You have to imagine her mistaking a matter minutes for potentially hours to get her to support the timeline you've claimed.
Ridge gave leeway in Echols' favor by talking her down to being off the phone by around 4:50, which why I quoted that later part of the question previously, as it's still 45 minutes later than the time you claimed.
He wasn't, so holding him to that stander is unreasonable.
You're misconstruing my position, and veering off topic. I'd be happy to discuss Misskelley's many confessions, but not until we get through the matter of Echols' failed alibi. By the way, surely you do realize that Echols attempted to present an alibi in court, that failed, right?
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
My complaint is that you asked where the documents show something I never claimed they would show, and have yet to fully acknowledge my stated reasons for presenting them, let alone actually go so far as to address them in that regard.
The times I posted came straight from the statements. I take offense to the fact that you would suggest I'm making inaccurate claims. In fact, I don't think I've made any claims yet beyond the fact that I thought LE pursued certain leads with more zeal than others and that there were serious issues with Jessie's confession, though his reaffirmation adds validity to it. Those are my opinions and I will stick by them. You can feel free to think otherwise. I haven't expressed any opinions as to whether or not the statements are credible yet you are apparently insistent on arguing a point that I'm not even arguing, particularly whether or not Echol's alibi fails. You can attack other people who are actually expressing an opinion and I will go back to reading.
Thanks again for the documents.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Well then, take this for instance:
Please quote whatever from Domini Teer's statement you've found to support the "around 4:00" time for the laundromat pickup which you've ascribed to her. Also, where can one even find a 9/10/93 statement from Damien which you suggest he made, and what can you quote from it to show he also gave the "around 4:00" time for the laundromat pickup which you've ascribed to him?
There's no reason to take offense, I'm just working from what information I've seen. If you can provide quotes from the statements to prove your characterizations accurate, I'll be happy to apologize for suggesting otherwise.
Did you not see any of that?
Edit: Oh, my bad, you said you don't see anything in the documents which ties Echols to the crimes, by which you surely mean the murders. That is true, and of course they don't as the documents are from months before the murders. However, what they do show is that Damien had a criminal and psychological history which one must consider when pondering the question of if Jones was justified in suspecting Echols might have committed the murders. That's the context in which I posted the documents, now would you please acknowledge them in that context?[/QUOTE]
Firstly - Wow, everyone's entitled to their opinion... You come off very rude.
Secondly - reading his physc findings sounds similar to a personality disorder, childhood trauma, control/power issues, cutting - sounds like me who suffers from borderline personality disorder.
Although Damien says in both those reports he wants to kill himself or others the predominate person he appears to want to hurt is himself. This being quite a clear characteristic of personality disorders.
Having a personality or physciatrist condition is not justification that your going to kill someone. People with these conditions (like myself) have limited control in crisis times yet we just don't go kill people because we say we will. Gee if LE looked at my physc evaluation there'd be alot of crimes I'd be pinned for based on my physciatric condition.
Edit: Oh, my bad, you said you don't see anything in the documents which ties Echols to the crimes, by which you surely mean the murders. That is true, and of course they don't as the documents are from months before the murders. However, what they do show is that Damien had a criminal and psychological history which one must consider when pondering the question of if Jones was justified in suspecting Echols might have committed the murders. That's the context in which I posted the documents, now would you please acknowledge them in that context?[/QUOTE]
Firstly - Wow, everyone's entitled to their opinion... You come off very rude.
Secondly - reading his physc findings sounds similar to a personality disorder, childhood trauma, control/power issues, cutting - sounds like me who suffers from borderline personality disorder.
Although Damien says in both those reports he wants to kill himself or others the predominate person he appears to want to hurt is himself. This being quite a clear characteristic of personality disorders.
Having a personality or physciatrist condition is not justification that your going to kill someone. People with these conditions (like myself) have limited control in crisis times yet we just don't go kill people because we say we will. Gee if LE looked at my physc evaluation there'd be alot of crimes I'd be pinned for based on my physciatric condition.
No need to apologize. I felt I owed it to you to say I should have left Domini off the list and just kept it at the other 3 or however many people it was that said that time. It doesn't change the point made, it changes only who it is you have to disbelieve.
[/QUOTE]
BBM - I haven't read much here but what little I have read shows me neither you nor I are the first to suggest this. What is ironic about it is that the manner in which the message is being delivered is very influencing. Unfortunately, it's influencing me away from their agenda, which tells me it's best to disengage and finish reading.
Good points on the psychiatric conditions. That is why I tried to simply say the records give us a glimpse of his make up or personality. Not every person with such a condition necessarily acts on it and not to the extent of murdering anyone. So does it give us an idea of some issues he was working with? Sure. Does it mean he did a darn thing? No.
BBM - I haven't read much here but what little I have read shows me neither you nor I are the first to suggest this. What is ironic about it is that the manner in which the message is being delivered is very influencing. Unfortunately, it's influencing me away from their agenda, which tells me it's best to disengage and finish reading.
Good points on the psychiatric conditions. That is why I tried to simply say the records give us a glimpse of his make up or personality. Not every person with such a condition necessarily acts on it and not to the extent of murdering anyone. So does it give us an idea of some issues he was working with? Sure. Does it mean he did a darn thing? No.[/QUOTE]
Just to clarify, you write in the manner the message is being delivered IM ASSUMING you mean the physc evaluations?
If I'm right in my assumption, then I'd like you to clarify who's agenda your referring too because im lost a little (sorry just had therapy and it fries me)
To me the physc reports are written very clinical like mine are, and read much the same hence why I did suggest the personality disorder path. I don't quite understand the hidden agenda part? can you fill me in?? For me it appears to be an evaluation and notes/homework on the patient, and I don't read / have the ability to read behind the lines (if that makes sense)
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Have you every done anything along the lines of:
- threaten to kill people, inlcuding cutting someone to peices and burry them in your girlfriend's front yard, murder and eat your father, slit your mother's throat?
- prompt your parrents ever express fear of what you might do to them and their other children?
- get aresseted for terroristic threatening, put on probation, and sent to a detention center for such offenses?
- set fire to your classroom?
- torture and multiate animals, including beating, disimboling, and stomping a Great Dane to death and then come back with battery acid to burn its hair and skin off?
- engaged in mutiple physical confrontations with peers, including one in which you attempted to gouge someone's eye out?
- assuallt people to drink their blood?
- profess a beleif that drinking blood gives you power, and that you communicate with demons through rituals?
- claim to be ihabited by the spirt of a murdered woman, and claim that state of possession makes you feel stronger and more powerful?
Unless your answer to most of those questions is yes, your personality and psyoclogical condition isn't even close to that of Echols around the time of the murders.
LE didn't even have an opertunity to look at his psycological history until it came out in post-conviction hearings. However, they couldn't help but notice his criminal behavior and gain some understading of his psycological behavior in the process. Furthermore, at least based on all the evidence I've seen, LE simply took what they knew about Echols as good reason to consider him a likely suspect in the murders, they didn't pin the murders on him. If you'd like to present a case that they did actually pin the murders on innocent people, I'd be happy to hear it out, but you're simple issunation of such makes far from a convicing argument.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Why would you do that rather than keep her on the list and note the discpenacies beteween her timeline and others, with respect to the notion that "all of the statements ultimately have to be considered in order to judge their credibility or what it is they are saying" as you acknolaged previously? Regardless, where do you see anything near 6:30 PM given for the Sanderses in Joe Hutchison's statement, and did you miss the part at the bottom of p. 18 where he says he "cannot be possitve" that Damien was even went to the Sanderses that night?
And on a side note, my agenda is accurate discussion of facts. If you find that rude and are being infulenced away from such discussion, I doubt you can rightly pin the blame on me for that.
Yes I have... Been arrested... Threatened to kill myself and family.. Tried to set fire to my own house..
I as I said have a personality disorder, I had to exhibit most of the above prior to being diagnosed.
Furthermore, you are nobody to tell me what or how my condition is, whether its worse or not.
Maybe get off your soapbox, take a chill pill and be nice to people.. Because your coming across as rude, domineering and like you know everything. People like that have a date with karma
I will not engage any further with you.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Reedus was referring to me, agreeing with your assessment that I'm rude, and I addressed that notion at the bottom of my previous post.
As for Johnny Depp, yes he clearly considers Damien a close friend, and he's also an amazing actor, the star of some of my favorite movies. However, having put considerable effort into familiarizing myself with the evidince surrounding the murders the three were convicted for, it seems highly unlikely to me that Depp has done the same. Rather, I suspect Depp has simply been mislead by the convinced, and misinformed mostly by others who've been similarly mislead. That includes people who've assumed the three were innocent before they even got to see the evidence presented during the trials, and who've clung to their potions in spite of the evidence which has surfaced since then.
Of course, there's also people who vehemently oppose capital punishment regardless of the circumstances, and even people who idolize murderers. Some such people are bound to be compelled to misrepresent the facts of this case to mislead others who don't share such beliefs. I very much doubt Johnny Depp is such a person though, or the vast majorly of the convicted's supporters, celebrities and otherwise. Again, I figure most supporters have simply been mislead, as the ancient Hindu metaphor from the Katha Upanishad explains: "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind."
I've not attempted to tell you what your condition is, and rather simply asked you a series of question so that I might assess how accurate your comparison is. Regardless, I will tell you that if you've actually done things comparable to most of what I listed from Echols' history, and particularly if you've done all those things in over the course of a year prior to a horrific multiple murder with ritualistic aspects: LE would be fools not to consider you a likely suspect.
Also, please don't imagine that I'm unsympathetic to such conditions, as that is far from reality. In truth, my mother was diagnosed as manic-depressive/bipolar nearly two decades before I was born, and lived with that condition for another two decades before she committed suicide. She was also an excellent mother and an amazing women in general aside from some short periods when her condition got the better of her. So I do empathize with you in that regard, and with Echols too even, but that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the evidence against him and the other two.
Manic Depressive doesn't exist. It's called major depressive disorder.
Bipolar although debilitating sufferers do in fact HAVE control EXCEPT in periods of mania.
Personality Disorders, untreatable with medication and sufferers have no control and usually exhibit the mental state of a child or teen. We constantly live in a crisis and the wrong tone / aggressive body language can be the catalyst to the way we act. Personality disorders are learned behaviour and can take many years to be in what we call remission.
Don't compare apples (bipolar) to pears (personality disorders)