Summary of Damien's Mental Health History

[UdbCrzy2]

I can tell you with certainty that sometimes "people closest" to someone can help railroad them straight to death row with negative statements, including specifically, someone's mother. I know that it can happen because I have seen it myself in another case that I am very close to. In fact, she went so far as the solicit statements from her friends and "business partners" and when she could not get them to write them willingly, she crafted, and forged them herself. There are lots of people in the world who aren't the greatest parents and who are concerned with no one but themselves.

See Fraud re: Pre-Sentence Report, page 27 - 32
http://www.joegcampaign.org/JG Petition Supplement.pdf

What did their mothers say during the trial against the three convicted? Do you think that had anything to do with their convictions?

 

[HRCODEPINK]

What did their mothers say during the trial against the three convicted? Do you think that had anything to do with their convictions?

IIRC, only Damien's mom spoke at trial: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/pamelah.html

Honestly, I don't think that anything in there ^ is what sent them to prison and I haven't read absolutely everything on the case. I was only mentioning it to say that it does happen. Sometimes mom's aren't so great.

But knowing what I know, I would be more inclined to believe that they were not guilty just based on the fact that an Alford plea was allowed if I didn't have doubts. I don't know how things are in AR, but based on my own personal experience, people who are on Death Row that have consistently proclaimed their innocence are NEVER released because they were willing to say they were guilty. They either have it or they don't and I think that the state no longer had it in their case. They don't like to admit that mistakes were made and an Alford plea saves them that embarrassment and the trouble of having an open case which is a political nightmare--especially when three young children are killed. Whether we as a society would like to admit it or not, not all people are considered equal. Some deaths are more tragic (politically) than others. I do not feel this way, but EVERYTHING is politics. At least in my state.

I believe, again, based on my own personal experience in these types of cases, that what hung them more than anything was the confession. The case that I referenced in the post that you quoted is a false confession case and I have been trying to get that man out for 12 of the almost 33 years that he has been in prison. I believe the powers that be in my state KNOW that he is innocent, but can't release him out of embarrassment. Some of that is his own fault because he has been "politically hot," as our former DOC Director said. He will more likely than not, never be paroled, because as a member of the parole board said, when he tried to explain himself, "innocent people don't confess." But actually, in truth, they sometimes do. I also know another person who was released after falsely confessing and DNA proved him innocent--twice, over the course of 8 years before he was finally released at year 18ish. It does happen. The man that was released contributes to the other's political heat, so to speak, because they want to say that his release proves the system works, but in truth, had it not been for the first, the second would have been executed and he was 100% innocent of the crime that sent him to death row.

According to my law books from school, a confession should never stand alone and there needs to be evidence to corroborate it. In some cases, several in my state, there isn't any evidence to corroborate. In some they manufacture evidence that appears to fit and if no one looks, then they go to prison or death row. I never would have believed it if I hadn't lived it myself for the last 12 years, but politics, appearance and procedure often trump justice--and when I say often, I mean that even once is too often.

I am a tough on crime murder victim's family member. In fact, I have had two family members murdered. I am not soft on crime at all. Quite the opposite. But I choose to work innocence cases because it is not only morally wrong to not ensure that when you are getting your eye for an eye that you have the right eye, but also because having the wrong person leaves the public with a false sense of security while a murderer walks the street.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

IIRC, only Damien's mom spoke at trial: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/pamelah.html

Honestly, I don't think that anything in there ^ is what sent them to prison and I haven't read absolutely everything on the case. I was only mentioning it to say that it does happen. Sometimes mom's aren't so great.

But knowing what I know, I would be more inclined to believe that they were not guilty just based on the fact that an Alford plea was allowed if I didn't have doubts. I don't know how things are in AR, but based on my own personal experience, people who are on Death Row that have consistently proclaimed their innocence are NEVER released because they were willing to say they were guilty. They either have it or they don't and I think that the state no longer had it in their case. They don't like to admit that mistakes were made and an Alford plea saves them that embarrassment and the trouble of having an open case which is a political nightmare--especially when three young children are killed. Whether we as a society would like to admit it or not, not all people are considered equal. Some deaths are more tragic (politically) than others. I do not feel this way, but EVERYTHING is politics. At least in my state.

I believe, again, based on my own personal experience in these types of cases, that what hung them more than anything was the confession. The case that I referenced in the post that you quoted is a false confession case and I have been trying to get that man out for 12 of the almost 33 years that he has been in prison. I believe the powers that be in my state KNOW that he is innocent, but can't release him out of embarrassment. Some of that is his own fault because he has been "politically hot," as our former DOC Director said. He will more likely than not, never be paroled, because as a member of the parole board said, when he tried to explain himself, "innocent people don't confess." But actually, in truth, they sometimes do. I also know another person who was released after falsely confessing and DNA proved him innocent--twice, over the course of 8 years before he was finally released at year 18ish. It does happen. The man that was released contributes to the other's political heat, so to speak, because they want to say that his release proves the system works, but in truth, had it not been for the first, the second would have been executed and he was 100% innocent of the crime that sent him to death row.

According to my law books from school, a confession should never stand alone and there needs to be evidence to corroborate it. In some cases, several in my state, there isn't any evidence to corroborate. In some they manufacture evidence that appears to fit and if no one looks, then they go to prison or death row. I never would have believed it if I hadn't lived it myself for the last 12 years, but politics, appearance and procedure often trump justice--and when I say often, I mean that even once is too often.

I am a tough on crime murder victim's family member. In fact, I have had two family members murdered. I am not soft on crime at all. Quite the opposite. But I choose to work innocence cases because it is not only morally wrong to not ensure that when you are getting your eye for an eye that you have the right eye, but also because having the wrong person leaves the public with a false sense of security while a murderer walks the street.

I can tell that you are not very familiar with the case because Echols family members did testify not just his mother.

There was evidence and the convicted did not have alibis and were seen near the crime scene. They all confessed to someone other than LE. One continued to confess when he was at his own attorneys office. One of the defense attorneys says today that he's not sure if they are innocent.

We have to rely on the jury's decision because they were there and saw the actual testimony and evidence. NO one else gets to see this but the jury, not even the people sitting in the gallery.

What really bothers me is when people who have murdered are released on a technicality, but are in fact guilty.

Misskelley is not retarded or borderline or with the mind of a 5-year-old. Now, you should know that defense attorneys want to try this little trick when the death penalty is involved and it was.

I'm surprised they didn't try the insanity defense for Echols because he may have been able to get that one.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I can tell that you are not very familiar with the case because Echols family members did testify not just his mother.

The only other family member besides Damien and his mother to testify at the trial was Damien's sixteen year old sister. Both his biological father and his adoptive father testified during the penalty phase (after the verdict had been reached).

There was evidence and the convicted did not have alibis and were seen near the crime scene. They all confessed to someone other than LE. One continued to confess when he was at his own attorneys office. One of the defense attorneys says today that he's not sure if they are innocent.

There was no physical evidence linking any of the three teens to the murders. The supposed sighting near the crime scene was of Damien and Domini, not Damien and Jason. The prosecution morphed Domini into Jason. "Confession" is a rather strong term to use for the statement of a jailhouse snitch (in Baldwin's case) and the statements of three tween girls (in Echols' case) about a conversation that they only overheard. All three did have alibis. The problem was that their alibis were provided by family and friends and the prosecution called them into question because of that. If you're saying that Jessie's Bible statement (2/8/94) was in Stidham's office, you're incorrect. It was in the Pine Bluff Arkansas Department of Correction Diagnostic Unit in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and it was not a confession. Stidham was questioning Jessie to determine if the statement he wished to make was perjury. Stidham believed that Jessie was about to perjure himself and convinced him not to make a statement at that time. The defense attorney that you suggested is not convinced of their innocence has not been working on the case since the original trial and is therefore not privy to all of the information that the current defense team has.

We have to rely on the jury's decision because they were there and saw the actual testimony and evidence. NO one else gets to see this but the jury, not even the people sitting in the gallery.

Juries can, and do, make mistakes. That's why we have an appeal process in this country. In this case, IMO, both juries were wrong. However, since the trial transcripts are available, we are privy to what the jury heard. Therefore, we can form our own opinions. In fact, we know more than the juries did at the time because we are also privy to all of the information that has been released since the convictions.

What really bothers me is when people who have murdered are released on a technicality, but are in fact guilty.

What really bothers me is when people spend over 18 years of their lives in prison for crimes of which they aren't guilty simply because the justice system that tried them was corrupt.

Misskelley is not retarded or borderline or with the mind of a 5-year-old. Now, you should know that defense attorneys want to try this little trick when the death penalty is involved and it was.

Misskelley has an IQ of 72. That is his full scale IQ. That is classified as borderline retarded http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html. No tricks are involved.

I'm surprised they didn't try the insanity defense for Echols because he may have been able to get that one.

Damien was not (and is not) insane. He was unfortunate enough to be a highly creative (and unfortunately arrogant) poor teenager who lived in a town that simply didn't understand him. The small-mindedness of the community (and the prejudice of a few people who were out to "get" Damien) were instrumental in the guilty verdicts in this case.

The WMFree are innocent, and I look forward to the proof of the guilt of the real killer of those three little boys. I'm confident that it will happen. I just don't know how soon.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Damien was not (and is not) insane. He was unfortunate enough to be a highly creative (and unfortunately arrogant) poor teenager who lived in a town that simply didn't understand him. The small-mindedness of the community (and the prejudice of a few people who were out to "get" Damien) were instrumental in the guilty verdicts in this case.

The WMFree are innocent, and I look forward to the proof of the guilt of the real killer of those three little boys. I'm confident that it will happen. I just don't know how soon.

Why do you respond in red fonts? I really have a difficult time reading that mess. You should try another color.

The producers of the movies were just in the right place at the right time to change the filming over to this.

You will be waiting a very long time for the proof of anyone other than the three who have served their time in prison and are now released.

How many 'real killers' have they accused? Didn't the movie have Byers the stepfather as the 'real killer'? Now it's Hobbs the other stepfather. Next it will be the mailman or the lunch lady from school...

Why don't they still think that Byers is the one? They made both of their movies leaning toward him. I never thought that it was Byers and I believe they have the right guys convicted and with guilty pleas.

Echols mental health records exhibit 500 as posted earlier in this thread shows that he is mentally ill, he won't get well. He will need to be on medication for the rest of his life.

It also shows that he is violent and homicidal. You cannot change this fact no matter how much spin you put on it.

He also confessed to others, was seen at the crime scene area by others and the same is true of the other two who were convicted.

In that article it says they are still looking for evidence to clear them, yet the attorneys and the convicted claim they already have it. Why don't they come forward with that information?

You have to remember that Hobbs like all the other parents and others were searching the Robin Hood area for those little boys. That hair was found 2-weeks after the bodies were discovered. AND the victim lived with his stepfather.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The producers of the movies were just in the right place at the right time to change the filming over to this.

Did you know that originally the first documentary was to be about kids gone wrong? It was only after the filmmakers met Damien, Jason and Jessie that they realized that they were innocent. Of course, the filmmakers added a "new ending" after the release. They would have been crazy to have neglected to do so.

You will be waiting a very long time for the proof of anyone other than the three who have served their time in prison and are now released.

I don't think so. Time will tell. I can be very patient.

How many 'real killers' have they accused? Didn't the movie have Byers the stepfather as the 'real killer'? Now it's Hobbs the other stepfather. Next it will be the mailman or the lunch lady from school...

Yes, the original documentary and the first sequel made JMB appear to be the guilty party. Just like Damien, JMB will be the first to say that his actions back in 1993 did not help remove the cloud of suspicion. However, as new information has become available, everyone has realized that it points in a different direction. Only idiots would ignore information that points to the real killer.

Why don't they still think that Byers is the one? They made both of their movies leaning toward him. I never thought that it was Byers and I believe they have the right guys convicted and with guilty pleas.

Byers thought as you do back in 1993 and until the testing results were made public. He has changed his mind about the real killer after being presented with evidence of who that killer is. IMO, if one fails to look at all information available in a case, one is not seeing the whole picture.

Echols mental health records exhibit 500 as posted earlier in this thread shows that he is mentally ill, he won't get well. He will need to be on medication for the rest of his life.

Exhibit 500 proves nothing. Damien could have been as crazy as a bedbug back in 1993, and that would only make him a person of interest, not a murderer. There is no evidence (other than the possibility that he has a mental disorder) that points to him as the killer.

It also shows that he is violent and homicidal. You cannot change this fact no matter how much spin you put on it.

There are also other persons of interest (or persons who should be persons of interest) in this case who have a violent and homicidal past. Again, you can't (or you shouldn't be able to) convict someone of murder based only on their mental state. Evidence is needed. Means, motive and opportunity and all that.

He also confessed to others, was seen at the crime scene area by others and the same is true of the other two who were convicted.

Damien did not "confess" to others. He might have made a sarcastic statement at a softball game. The Hollingsworths said that they saw Damien and Domini on the service road, not Damien and Jason. To my knowledge, no one has identified either Jason or Jessie as having been at the scene except Jessie himself.

In that article it says they are still looking for evidence to clear them, yet the attorneys and the convicted claim they already have it. Why don't they come forward with that information?

When the defense team has all the testing results back and properly organized, they will present it to Scott Ellington as was discussed in that Q & A session. I'm sure that the defense team is just waiting until all test results are back. As to "still looking for evidence to clear them," I'm sure that they will continue to look for evidence, no matter how much they already have. Just because they have some evidence doesn't mean that they wouldn't like to have more.

You have to remember that Hobbs like all the other parents and others were searching the Robin Hood area for those little boys. That hair was found 2-weeks after the bodies were discovered. AND the victim lived with his stepfather.

No, the Hobbs hair was part of the original findings. Also, it was not found on his step son but on one of the other bodies. The hair that was found later was on a protected root and was linked to Hobbs' friend, Jacoby, who, according to him (Jacoby) was never at the discovery ditch. IMO, it is more damning than the Hobbs hair.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

No, the Hobbs hair was part of the original findings. Also, it was not found on his step son but on one of the other bodies. The hair that was found later was on a protected root and was linked to Hobbs' friend, Jacoby, who, according to him (Jacoby) was never at the discovery ditch. IMO, it is more damning than the Hobbs hair.

Do you have a link or is this your opinion?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Do you have a link or is this your opinion?

I'm not sure exactly what you are questioning. Jive discusses the hairs on his site ( http://www.jivepuppi.com/ ). They have been discussed at length on the Blackboard, too ( http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php ). The "Hobbs' hair" was found under Michael Moore's ligature, which was collected at the time the bodies were discovered. IIRC, the "Jacoby hair" was recovered later (two weeks may be about right) on a tree stump. I'm not sure what you're questioning, but these hairs were the main impetus behind the ASSC ordering the evidentiary hearing that never happened but the ordering of which led to the release of the WMFree. The only part of my post that was opinion is that the Jacoby hair is more damning than the Hobbs hair.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'm not sure exactly what you are questioning. Jive discusses the hairs on his site ( http://www.jivepuppi.com/ ). They have been discussed at length on the Blackboard, too ( http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php ). The "Hobbs' hair" was found under Michael Moore's ligature, which was collected at the time the bodies were discovered. IIRC, the "Jacoby hair" was recovered later (two weeks may be about right) on a tree stump. I'm not sure what you're questioning, but these hairs were the main impetus behind the ASSC ordering the evidentiary hearing that never happened but the ordering of which led to the release of the WMFree. The only part of my post that was opinion is that the Jacoby hair is more damning than the Hobbs hair.

So you are giving me a link to another message board to find someones opinion. That's why I asked if it were a factual document that you were getting this from or if it was just a guess.

I think Jive is a blog...

 

[Compassionate Reader]

What I'd like to find and haven't yet (I'm pretty sure that it's on Jive's site, but I don't know where) is a link to Bode's report. They tested the hairs, so they would (hopefully) have the information you seek.

I know it was discussed in the Rule 37 abstracts, but that document is over 900 pages long. I just don't remember exactly who discussed it. The hairs were discussed in the defense team presser in October of 20007, but I don't know if that is still available. When I have time I'll try to find the page numbers from the abstracts, but I know it's there.

I've read about these hairs in so many places, not just message boards or blogs. It's been in press releases and articles. IIRC, the hairs were discussed on the Aphrodite Jones show, too. I'm sure that the whole thing will be made clear in January when HBO telecasts Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory.

I've read so much since the release that I can't remember where I've read a lot of what I've read. It's out there somewhere, though. As soon as I find it, I'll provide a link. This information is certainly not something that I made up. It's factual.

 

[Cazzie]

I can tell you with certainty that sometimes "people closest" to someone can help railroad them straight to death row with negative statements, including specifically, someone's mother. I know that it can happen because I have seen it myself in another case that I am very close to. In fact, she went so far as the solicit statements from her friends and "business partners" and when she could not get them to write them willingly, she crafted, and forged them herself. There are lots of people in the world who aren't the greatest parents and who are concerned with no one but themselves.

See Fraud re: Pre-Sentence Report, page 27 - 32
http://www.joegcampaign.org/JG%20Petition%20Supplement.pdf

Did Damien's mother (or anyone other family) give derogatory testimony in the WM3 case? I've yet to read all the trial documents.

If so, it might explain any alleged tension between them. I saw video of Damien's mother waiting to see him at the release, but never saw/read anything about them actually meeting.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

What did their mothers say during the trial against the three convicted? Do you think that had anything to do with their convictions?

I can tell that you are not very familiar with the case because Echols family members did testify not just his mother.

There was evidence and the convicted did not have alibis and were seen near the crime scene. They all confessed to someone other than LE. One continued to confess when he was at his own attorneys office. One of the defense attorneys says today that he's not sure if they are innocent.

We have to rely on the jury's decision because they were there and saw the actual testimony and evidence. NO one else gets to see this but the jury, not even the people sitting in the gallery.

What really bothers me is when people who have murdered are released on a technicality, but are in fact guilty.

Misskelley is not retarded or borderline or with the mind of a 5-year-old. Now, you should know that defense attorneys want to try this little trick when the death penalty is involved and it was.

I'm surprised they didn't try the insanity defense for Echols because he may have been able to get that one.

When you asked the question originally, as I quoted above, you did not ask if other family members testified. You only asked about their mothers. In the available trial transcripts, Damien's mom was the only one that I saw. I don't see how answering the question that was asked and not adding things to it would make me unfamiliar with the case. I said I have not read the entire record, but I have read an awful lot and as of yet, I haven't seen anything that convinces me of their guilt.

There are claims that Damien confessed to someone else, but I am not sure how much weight I would give the girls at the ball game if that was what you were referring to. And I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever outside of the confession that points to any of them. Under no circumstances is a confession supposed to stand alone as prove of someone's guilt and in this case, that is all I can find that "proves" anything.

It is also my understanding that the attorneys got Miskelley to confess to lots of things, just to show that they could. That is hardly the type of person I want to see confessing. I know exactly how intelligent someone with Jessie's IQ is, because Earl Washington (who also confessed and was proven innocent through DNA) has the same IQ and I know him well, even attending his wedding. I also know how easy it was to get him to say whatever. He not only confessed to the murder of Rebecca Williams, but the rape of many other women as well. The city of Culpepper hit the jackpot and solved all of their cold cases at once! How fortunate--until the victims who were still living came in and said that he was the wrong man. Then they only had the deceased victim to take him to court on. It happens all the time, no matter how many people choose to ignore it.

I think that you may be mistaken about what the public can see. I may be wrong and things may be backwards in AR, however, for the most part, the public can read any documents or and information on any evidence that is presented at trial. It is public record in ever state that I know of. And I do not have to rely on the jury--especially considering the fact that this jury was tainted with misconduct.

I don't know what case you are referring to about technicalities, but I do know that most times when someone is released on a technicality, someone violated the Constitutional rights of a defendant. While I do not like to see murderers walking the street, as a legal studies major, I have to agree with things being thrown out when they are not obtained legally. If we did not have rules in place, many more innocent people would be in prison than there are because it would be a free for all. For example, the exclusionary rule was created to give teeth to the Fourth Amendment. Without teeth (consequences) then why should we pay any attention to the bill of rights or the Constitution or any rules or laws in the first place. It would be a free for all. They have rules, they are trained to follow these rules and to protect the innocent, these rules must be followed in all cases. Even for the guilty, because precedent gets set and then they can violate the rights of you or me. Remember it was the Framers intention that it was better that the guilty go free than innocent suffer. It was also their belief that those who would give up their liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.

I also don't believe that you understand the insanity defense.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Did Damien's mother (or anyone other family) give derogatory testimony in the WM3 case? I've yet to read all the trial documents.

If so, it might explain any alleged tension between them. I saw video of Damien's mother waiting to see him at the release, but never saw/read anything about them actually meeting.

IMO, neither of the parents of the defendants who testified (which would include Damien's mother at the Echols/Baldwin trial and Jessie's father at his trial) gave derogatory testimony nor did Damien's sister. IIRC, those were the only family members who testified at the trials. The other alibi witnesses were mainly friends (teenagers) except for one of Jessie's neighbors and the Sanders family adults.

IMO, one of the biggest mistakes made was by Jason's original defense team. They didn't put on any witnesses except Charles Linch who was refuting the fiber evidence. They didn't put on any alibi witnesses at all or even have his mother take the stand. I believe this was a mistake made by a fairly inexperienced defense team, and I believe that this mistake was part of why Jason was falsely convicted, but that's JMO.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Damien was not (and is not) insane. He was unfortunate enough to be a highly creative (and unfortunately arrogant) poor teenager who lived in a town that simply didn't understand him. The small-mindedness of the community (and the prejudice of a few people who were out to "get" Damien) were instrumental in the guilty verdicts in this case.

The WMFree are innocent, and I look forward to the proof of the guilt of the real killer of those three little boys. I'm confident that it will happen. I just don't know how soon.

I agree he's not insane, but is a heartless and sociopathic cold blooded child killer who committed an absolutely horrible crime against three cub scouts who were totally helpless.

If he were insane, then he would not have been responsible for this due to insanity, but that's not true.

I do think that he's mentally ill though.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree he's not insane, but is a heartless and sociopathic cold blooded child killer who committed an absolutely horrible crime against three cub scouts who were totally helpless.

You are entitled to that opinion. However, despite the two juries who erroneously ruled otherwise and despite the Alford Pleas, there is no real evidence to support your opinion. Therefore, your opinion is not fact.

If he were insane, then he would not have been responsible for this due to insanity, but that's not true.

Damien is not and never has been insane IMO. The introduction of his mental history was done by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial in an effort to avoid the death penalty. Since the death penalty was imposed (but thankfully not carried out), that must mean that Damien was not deemed to have been mentally ill enough to avoid it. Since any mental illness usually means that the death penalty can not be imposed, then I guess that means that Damien was not then (and is not now) mentally ill.

I do think that he's mentally ill though.

And I don't. I think that his primary problems during 1993 - 1994 were teen angst and poverty. I think that his problems were exaggerated by the defense in an effort to avoid the death penalty. It's done all the time. I also believe that these problems have been resolved with the passage of time and the support of caring friends. I base my opinion as to the teenage angst on my 25 year's experience teaching teenagers. Also, since I taught primarily teenagers living in poverty, I am familiar with how that specific group of people react in various situations.

As you say, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Many posters have asked for page numbers referencing Exhibit 500, so here is a revised copy.

SUMMARY OF DAMIEN ECHOLS’ MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY

Source: Exhibit 500 http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html
Page numbers are in parentheses.


5/7/92.* E. Arkansas Mental Health Center:* Client admits to having been suspended seven times this past semester for initiating fights at school and starting fires.* States in one fight he almost gouged out the victim’s eyes. (29)

6/1/92 - 6/25/92.* Committed to Charter Hospital of Little Rock:* Admits to a history of violence and attempting to scratch out the eyes of a classmate.* There were major concerns that Damien was exhibiting disturbed thinking.* He has a history of extreme physical aggression toward others.* It was felt that he needed to be temporarily removed from his environment to provide protection for him and protection for others. ( 92, 188).

Damien states, “I burn myself with lighters. I have huffed gas and paint, used speed, marijuana, glue, and alcohol.” (232).

Psychosocial Assessment: Patient appeared to be sniffing the air around him as if he were responding to an external stimulus. He also cut his eyes in one direction or the other; may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations. (237).

Verbalized concern that there are surveillance cameras behind his mirror and under his desk. Quite paranoid, drawing symbols. Damien definitely bears watching. ( 281, 297).

Damien states, “If he (girlfriend’s father) had hit her, I would have blown him away. Next time I will eliminate that person.” (295). Damien also threatened to kill police officers. (366).

Mother concerned that son “not learning to deal with anger and rages.” Mother said Damien might be responding to outside stimulation, voiced fear that “son may be crazy.” (301).

Psychological Report: The behavior of this youngster is characterized by impulsive hostility...the desire to gain power and demean others springs from animosity and a wish to vindicate past grievances.* This teenager believes that past degradations may be undone by provoking fear and intimidation in others.* Cool and distant, this youth demonstrates little or no compassion for others. (212)

6/25/92: Discharged to mother with instructions for continuing care. Family moving to Oregon. (309)

9/2/92 - 9/4/92. Committed to St. Vincent’s Hospital in Oregon. Patient denies suicidal or homicidal ideation. However, in talking with family members, they state that he made it quite clear that he had thoughts of harming other people, i.e. was going to cut his mother’s throat and made verbal threats to his father in the emergency room. (104). Because of Damien’s threats, both parents do not want him to return to their home.* They are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to the two other children who reside in the home.* Damien is to return to Arkansas by bus. (150).

9/14/92 - 9/28/92.* Readmitted to Charter Hospital.* While in Oregon, Damien made a plan to “slash my parents’ throats and eat them alive.” Damien believes that he is a vampire and does worship the devil. Has made several statements indicating that he has a desire to harm others.* He admitted to sucking the blood out of a peer’s neck. (87, 374, 375).

Stated he had attempted suicide before and “wasn’t worried about trying again, because I know I can come back.” (377)

Discharged 9/28/92. Aftercare to be arranged by T. Deaton, Dr. Gallien/M. Wilson.
Diagnosis: 1. Psychotic Disorder NOS and 2. Dysthymia. (344, 439).

1/5/93.* Mental Health Center reopens case:* Reports self-mutilation, cutting self with knives.* Will “trance out” since 5th grade - doesn’t have to deal with what’s going on.* Says he thinks a lot about life after death-- “I want to go where the monsters go.” (41, 42).

He has tried to steal energy from someone else and influence others’ minds with witchcraft.* Describes self as “pretty much hates the human race.”* Relates that he feels people are in two classes--sheep and wolves (wolves eat the sheep). (42).

1/19/93:* Reveals history of abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child.* States, “I just put it all inside.”* Describes this as more than just anger - like rage.* Sometimes he does “blow up.”* Relates that when this happens, the only solution is to “hurt someone.”* When questioned on his feelings he states, “I know I’m going to influence the world.* People will remember me.” (50).

1/25/93:* Speaks of rituals, drinking blood, more involved in demonology.* Damien explained that he obtains his power by drinking blood of others.* He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner.* This is achieved by biting or cutting.* He states, “It makes me feel like a god.” He wants very much to be all powerful. He wants very much to be in total control. (52)

Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband.* In addition, he also reports conversations with demons and other spirits.* This is achieved through rituals. (52)

2/5/93:* Damien is noted to have cuts on his right arm and hand.* Related feeling very angry yesterday*when running into previous girlfriend.* “I controlled it - I can do anything. “ (54)

The Social Security Administration determined that Echols was 100% disabled due to mental impairment and granted him full disability benefits. (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html 8.b)

5/5/93 A.M:* At times he is impulsive and does things that may be harmful to him.* He has impulses to do strange and harmful things. (61 and http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/jmoneypenny.html)

5/5/93 P.M.:* Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore are murdered.* * * * *

If anyone has done ANY real research on this case, this is the first documents to look at. It really gives you insight into what Echols personality is like and what his thoughts were at the time of the crime and the time leading up to the crime.

I think many people think it was LE who thought about the devil worship, but it was Echols and his family who were the first ones to speak about it.

I also noticed abuse to animals just like other murderers have had in their past.

That's a good list. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Why do you respond in red fonts? I really have a difficult time reading that mess. You should try another color.

No problem. I can easily change colors. I hope you can read this better.

The producers of the movies were just in the right place at the right time to change the filming over to this.

If you're talking about the original movie, the only thing that was "changed" was their outlook on the case. The change came after they talked to the three supposed "killers." At one point, IIRC, the filmmakers mentioned that it only took about five minutes of talking to the three teens to realize that they weren't killers. (That doesn't mean, however, that they only talked to them for five minutes, as I've seen some nons claim.) If you're talking about the new documentary, yes they were. I believe that's very fortunate.

You will be waiting a very long time for the proof of anyone other than the three who have served their time in prison and are now released.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled. My opinion is that it won't be all that long until the real killer is behind bars where he belongs. With some of the "deep pockets" still involved (and working to exonerate the freed men), I believe that the truth will be revealed in the not to distant future.

How many 'real killers' have they accused? Didn't the movie have Byers the stepfather as the 'real killer'? Now it's Hobbs the other stepfather. Next it will be the mailman or the lunch lady from school...

I will admit that the accusation of Byers (who is an adoptive father, not a step father) was a knee jerk reaction. However, the evidence now points in a different direction. If evidence implicating the mailman or the lunch lady from school becomes available, then the accusation will follow the evidence.

Why don't they still think that Byers is the one? They made both of their movies leaning toward him. I never thought that it was Byers and I believe they have the right guys convicted and with guilty pleas.

Byers is no longer a suspect because, unlike the WMPD and the State of Arkansas, supporters are following the evidence. When new information becomes available about a murder case, it is only right and just that the new evidence be examined and considered. That is SOP in any properly-run police department or State prosecutor's office. Also, when none of the evidence can definitively prove that the convicted men are guilty in fact, the convictions should be reconsidered. However, for whatever reasons (I believe political ones), the State of Arkansas refuses to do so.

Echols mental health records exhibit 500 as posted earlier in this thread shows that he is mentally ill, he won't get well. He will need to be on medication for the rest of his life.

Even if that were true, which I personally don't believe, Exhibit 500 would only be useful to make Damien a person of interest. Since it was introduced by the defense, obviously the prosecution didn't believe it was proof of guilt. And, since the death sentence was imposed, the judge didn't believe it proved that Damien was mentally ill, either. So, as I have repeatedly stated, it proves nothing, and continuing to bring it up is simply proof of the total lack of evidence against Damien or either of the other falsely convicted men.

It also shows that he is violent and homicidal. You cannot change this fact no matter how much spin you put on it.

No it doesn't. It shows a troubled teenager who may have had a few violent outbursts. He didn't harm his parents, despite his threats. And, again as I have stated before, I believe that much of the information from mental health workers was exaggerated. After all, it was presented by the defense in an (unsuccessful) effort to avoid the death penalty. So, it wasn't really very helpful.

He also confessed to others, was seen at the crime scene area by others and the same is true of the other two who were convicted.

The "confession" was not corroborated, and the mother of two of the silly tweens now says that she believes that he was being sarcastic. Also, please remember that these little girls didn't claim that they were actually a part of the conversation. Burnett shouldn't have allowed the testimony, as it was hearsay. The fact that he did allow it is simply further proof of his bias. Damien was not seen at the crime scene. The Hollingsworths reportedly saw him with their niece, Domini, on the service road. However, somehow Domini morphed into Jason by the time their "evidence" was presented. Since their son, LG, was also a suspect, I believe it's possible that they might have fabricated the sighting just to cast suspicion away from their own son. Or, are Damien's friends and family the only ones who can "lie" to protect him? The same is not true of the others, either. The only statements about Jessie being there are the ones he made to LE, which have not been supported by the evidence, and which IMO are the result of his suggestibility caused by his low IQ. The only statement against Jason is Michael Carson's jailhouse "snitch" statement, which would have been effectively refuted by Joyce Cureton, had she not been told by the State to make herself "unavailable" to testify at the trial. See her testimony at the Rule 37 Hearing.

In that article it says they are still looking for evidence to clear them, yet the attorneys and the convicted claim they already have it. Why don't they come forward with that information?

This is simply MOO, but I believe that they are waiting for all testing to be completed. (Animal hairs and fibers, IIRC, are still being tested.) No one wants the parents to have to go through another trial unless the real killer is being tried. So, I believe that they are also waiting until they have proof not only that exonerates the three falsely-convicted men but that also firmly establishes the identity of the real killer.

You have to remember that Hobbs like all the other parents and others were searching the Robin Hood area for those little boys. That hair was found 2-weeks after the bodies were discovered. AND the victim lived with his stepfather.

The Jacoby hair was found later, true. However, it was found in an out of the way location (on a tree stump on a steep bank by the ditch where the bodies were found), which had only been visited after the discovery by LE officials. Additionally, Jacoby in his Pasdar deposition claims that he never visited the discovery site, on May 5 or at anytime. The Hobbs hair was under the ligature that bound Michael Moore, not Hobbs' step son, and it was in the evidence room from the time of the initial investigation.

 

[Dysthymia]

This is Damien Echols interviewed in 1996 for Prime Time Justice (a former Court TV show) I wish there was more of this interview but this clip was all I could find. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOuEo1ouDOk"]Damien Echols Interviewed on Court TV - Primetime Justice 1996 - YouTube[/ame]

What stands out is that he says he wouldn't change a thing about his past because what happened made him into what he is today (or something close to it)

Why would he say that? Why did he feel that way?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Because he is not a murderer. At the time of that interview, he had been incarcerated for over two years. He was twenty-one years old and feeling forsaken by the justice system (at least partially because, according to his accounts [which LE vehemently deny], he was raped repeatedly and LE did nothing beyond cursory investigation about it). I imagine that he felt pretty hopeless at the time of this interview. Remember, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robinhood Hills had just come out, which is what prompted this interview IIRC. He did not know that a groundswell of support was developing that would eventually lead to his freedom. He was on Death Row for a crime that he didn't commit and his lawyer wasn't even holding out any hope for him or at least wasn't telling him of any hope.

Also, in typical Damien fashion, he marches to his own music. His apparent acceptance of his fate at this time is merely another coping mechanism. Personally I don't know how he survived the whole ordeal. I'm a very strong person, but, based on the things he said in his book, Almost Home, and the things he has talked about in post release interviews, I would have gone bat *advertiser censored* crazy during those 18 plus years. The fact that he didn't is testament to me of his inner strength and determination. It is certainly not the actions of a mentally ill person. Incarceration should have made his supposed mental ailments worse. Instead, he focused his energies internally and came out emotionally stronger than when he went in to prison. How many times does that happen?

 

[Dysthymia]

I believe that in that film clip I see a mentally ill person. I think he has become a much different person over the years because the mental illness was treated correctly for the first time in his life. Of course, that is my opinion, and I am only speaking to the fact that he changed much over the years and his speech became slower and he seems to weigh each word carefully before he says it outloud. And that is a positive thing for him. I sincerely hope that he is on medication because when one has a mental illness, believe me, it never goes away. But one can live with it, in varying degrees, if there is medication and a support system. It doesn't ever go away. IMO