West of Memphis

[kyleb]

It sounds to me like the biggest complaint you should have is with the sloppy report prepared by the WMPD.

Well it's bound to sound that way to you, as long as you insist cherry picking what the report says and ignoring what the Beardon's actual interview transcript and '04 affidavit says, like was done in WoM. While the report is inarguably sloppy, there's no excuse for using it to mislead others.

First, can you point to me where the prosecution placed the murders as happening between 6:30 and 8:30?

Not off hand. What do you believe the state considered to be the time frame of the murders, or do you imagine they they ignored the evidence in that regard just as you chose to do?

 

[reedus23]

Well it's bound to sound that way to you, as long as you insist cherry picking what the report says and ignoring what the actual Beardon's transcript and '04 affidavit says, like was done in WoM. While the report is inargaibly sloppy, that's no excuse it mislead people with it.


Not off hand. What do you believe the state considered to be the time frame of the murders,


or do you imagine they they ignored the evidence in that regard just as you chose to do?

Respectfully split the last sentence-As to the first part, it was always my understanding they just went with a general time frame of when they were last seen and when the bodies were found. I could stand to be corrected and if you run across anything, let me know.

As to the second part, again, not sure why the need for kindergarten-like remarks.

Regarding the first paragraph, I still don't find it misleading. She claims to have had several telephone conversations from roughly 3:30 until 9:30. No where does it claim she was on the phone the entire time. What the interview and affidavit do is expound on it and give more detail. So as not to be cherry picking, here is that entire report.

ON 091093, I MET WITH JENNIFER BEARDEN AT HER RESIDENCE IN BARTLETT, TENNESSEE. THE INTERVIEW WAS A RESULT OF HAVING OBTAINED INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH DAMIEN ON THE DAY OF THE HOMICIDE. SHE INFORMED ME OF SEVERAL TIMES WHEN SHE HAD BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH DAMIEN AND JASON DURING THE AFTERNOON AFTER SCHOOL AND UNTIL ABOUT 9:30 PM ON THE EVENING OF 050593. SHE GAVE A TAPED STATEMENT OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON THAT EVENING.

 

[kyleb]

I could stand to be corrected and if you run across anything, let me know

Again, just look at the evidence you chose to disregarded. Namely, the fact that in Misskelley's clarification statement he put the time of the attacks as it was getting dark, the fact that the Hollingsworths put Echols waking a few hundred yards for the scene of the murders at around 9:30, and the fact that people were in and out of those woods searching from around that time until until the bodies were found. While you chose to disregard that evidence, the state did not, and rather presented it trials to the extent which it was admissible.

So as not to be cherry picking, here is that entire report.

You're cherry picking the vague report on Beardon's interview in avoidance of acknowledging the fact her actual words in the interview transcript and her '04 affidavit contradict both Baldwin and Echols' claims of alibis. But of course you won't find doing so misleading as long as you prefer to be mislead.

 

[reedus23]

Again, just look at the evidence you chose to disregarded. Namely, the fact that in Misskelley's clarification statement he put the time of the attacks as it was getting dark, the fact that the Hollingsworths put Echols waking a few hundred yards for the scene of the murders at around 9:30, and the fact that people were in and out of those woods searching from around that time until until the bodies were found. While you chose to disregard that evidence, the state did not, and rather presented it trials to the extent which it was admissible.


You're cherry picking the vague report on Beardon's interview in avoidance of acknowledging the fact her actual words in the interview transcript and her '04 affidavit contradict both Baldwin and Echols' claims of alibis. But of course you won't find doing so misleading as long as you prefer to be mislead.

Or the evidence that you chose to ignore that he said they occurred that morning or around noon. Or the evidence that you chose to ignore that the ME put it at between 1am and 7am on 5/6. So if the prosecutions own witness puts the time of death in 3.5 to 9.5 hours after 9:30, I would assume you would agree that the Hollingsworth's testimony is worthless?

 

[reedus23]

You're cherry picking the vague report on Beardon's interview in avoidance of acknowledging the fact her actual words in the interview transcript and her '04 affidavit contradict both Baldwin and Echols' claims of alibis. But of course you won't find doing so misleading as long as you prefer to be mislead.

I'm not cherry picking anything. It is a fact that that is the entirety of that WMPD report. Go complain to the WMPD. Nothing in that report factually differs from the full interview. I don't think the purpose of the statement or the affidavit is to provide an alibi, it is to simply state what factually happened. As it turns out, when coupled with the other witnesses, it makes it near impossible for Echols or Baldwin to have been involved. I understand you are hell bent on believing in their guilt and therefore dismiss such statements and you are perfectly entitled to disbelieve it. Personally, I find it compelling and fits the other known facts as well.

 

[kyleb]

Or the evidence that you chose to ignore that he said they occurred that morning or around noon. Or the evidence that you chose to ignore that the ME put it at between 1am and 7am on 5/6.

It's not that I simply ignore such facts, but rather I consider them in the context of the body of evidence as a whole, much like the police and prosecution did.

I would assume you would agree that the Hollingsworth's testimony is worthless?

Do you not realize how flagrantly your assumption contradicts what I've said here?

As it turns out, when coupled with the other witnesses, it makes it near impossible for Echols or Baldwin to have been involved.

Where can one find this coupling of witness statements you allude to, or when you say "As it turns out" are you simply referring to what's happened in your head?

I understand you are hell bent

I can see how it might look that way to an apologist for a guy who: believed himself to have visited Hell, imagined he was turning into an abomination, claimed he was set to become Satan's artillery captain in some battle of Armageddon, as Echols explained of himself throughout his letters to Gloria Shettles. I'm not one to bend though, and rather prefer to accept what is evidenced, so for example if you can evidence your claim of a coupling of witness statements you allude to, I'd happily agree that it "makes it near impossible for Echols or Baldwin to have been involved". But do you even comprehend the difference between making an assertion and substantiating one?

 

[ceecee30]

It's not that I simply ignore such facts, but rather I consider them in the context of the body of evidence as a whole, much like the police and prosecution did.


Do you not realize how flagrantly your assumption contradicts what I've said here?


Where can one find this coupling of witness statements you allude to, or when you say "As it turns out" are you simply referring to what's happened in your head?


I can see how it might look that way to an apologist for a guy who: believed himself to have visited Hell, imagined he was turning into an abomination, claimed he was set to become Satan's artillery captain in some battle of Armageddon, as Echols explained of himself throughout his letters to Gloria Shettles. I'm not one to bend though, and rather prefer to accept what is evidenced, so for example if you can evidence your claim of a coupling of witness statements you allude to, I'd happily agree that it "makes it near impossible for Echols or Baldwin to have been involved". But do you even comprehend the difference between making an assertion and substantiating one?

Sorry I'm unable to snip.

Referring to your last statement about Echols and his letters, I'm sure your well aware from your own experiences what the mind can do when affected/afflicted with mental illness??

Because Echols does have a diagnosed mental illness according to Callahan.

His writing may or may not be due to an altered state of mind... I won't speculate at the risk of your blunt rebuttal due to my speculations..

 

[kyleb]

I'm certainly sympathetic to issues mental illness as a result of what I've seen my mother and others suffer through, but had my mother fancied herself some minion of Satan and killed three children I wouldn't be calling others hell bent for acknowledging the evidence which demonstrates as much.

And yeah, a lot of what people do is obviously the result of altered states of mind, but that does nothing to change the reality of what is actually done.

 

[ceecee30]

I'm certainly sympathetic to issues mental illness as a result of what I've seen my mother and others suffer through, but had my mother fancied herself some minion of Satan and killed three children I wouldn't be calling others hell bent for acknowledging the evidence which demonstrates as much.

And yeah, a lot of what people do is obviously the result of altered states of mind, but that does nothing to change the reality of what is actually done.

I am only referring to his writings here, not the crime.

Taking the killings out of it for a moment, a lot of mentally ill people could truly believe they were Satan's minion and write absolutely horrible things yet not actually act on them..

I don't believe his writings point to his guilt at all nor do I believe it proves innocence..

Hell I've written some crazy **** and looked back on it and thought WTF...

 

[kyleb]

Sure, plenty of people write all sorts of crazy things without ever acting on them and Echols' mental illness itself does nothing to connect him to the murders, but that doesn't make it any less absurd to brand people as hell bent for acknowledging the body of evidence which not only connects Echols to the murders but also demonstrates his hell bent motives.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sure, plenty of people write all sorts of crazy things without ever acting on them and Echols' mental illness itself does nothing to connect him to the murders, but that doesn't make it any less absurd to brand people as hell bent for acknowledging the body of evidence which not only connects Echols to the murders but also demonstrates his hell bent motives.

This is all just supposition.. Some one has a teen may have been dark and murky in their personality.. That must make them a killer?

I don't at all see an clear and cut evidence that connects any of the 3 to the crime. I see innuendo.

Just your spin on the facts.

BBM, That is all possibility but I would love to see this evidence without your spin on it. Just perfunctory facts with proof that Damien did this. I have not seen anything what so ever that proves to me any of these 3 were there or committed this horrible crimes. What I do see is evidence that could in fact lead to others but for some reason keeps getting swept under the rug and ignored because it seems the people in power don't want to have to choke on their investigation in the first case.
There are plenty of people with a mental illness that never hurt anyone..

 

[kyleb]

This is all just supposition.. Some one has a teen may have been dark and murky in their personality.. That must make them a killer?

That's supposition, but it's also a flagrant mischaracterization of my stated position here.

I would love to see this evidence without your spin on it. Just perfunctory facts with proof that Damien did this.

I'd love to know how I could present that evidence to you in a way which you wouldn't dismiss as spin. Any chance you could demonstrate as much by providing "Just perfunctory facts with proof" that Jesus, Lazurus, and others have risen from the grave, like I asked you to do when you made those claims last time you posted in this subforum?:

In fact, There were more people raised from the dead then just Lazarus and Jesus

On what evidence are you making your claims of fact here, regarding Jesus and Lazarus for starters? Best I've been able to tell, there's nothing more than rumors to support such claims.

Unless I can get a handle on how you consider one goes about evidencing something as fact, I can't rightly expect to ever accomplish as much for you. So please show me how you go about proving your claims of fact, and then I'll do my best to follow your lead in proving mine.

 

[reedus23]

It's not that I simply ignore such facts, but rather I consider them in the context of the body of evidence as a whole, much like the police and prosecution did.

I don't have a problem with you saying that as long as you acknowledge that those who believe in their innocence are doing the exact same thing. You can't have it both ways just to suit your argument.

 

[reedus23]

Do you not realize how flagrantly your assumption contradicts what I've said here?

You conveniently leave off the part where I put it in the context of the ME giving a time of death between 1 a.m. and 9 a.m. If that was the time of death, how can their testimony of events at 9:30 the night before have any relevance? It would make the Hollingsworth testimony as relevant as someone testifying they saw Echols the week before at the skating rink.

 

[reedus23]

I can see how it might look that way to an apologist for a guy who: believed himself to have visited Hell, imagined he was turning into an abomination, claimed he was set to become Satan's artillery captain in some battle of Armageddon, as Echols explained of himself throughout his letters to Gloria Shettles. I'm not one to bend though, and rather prefer to accept what is evidenced, so for example if you can evidence your claim of a coupling of witness statements you allude to, I'd happily agree that it "makes it near impossible for Echols or Baldwin to have been involved". But do you even comprehend the difference between making an assertion and substantiating one?

When you want to have a civil discussion about it let me know. Until then you can go read up on callahans and see what I am talking about.

 

[kyleb]

those who believe in their innocence are doing the exact same thing.

Nonsense. When people reach different conclusions is because they do different things to get there, while doing the exact same thing results in the exact same conclusion.

You conveniently leave off the part where I put it in the context of the ME giving a time of death between 1 a.m. and 9 a.m.

Actually in the part I left off you said "3.5 to 9.5 hours after 9:30", which is "between 1am and 7am" as you said just prior to that, and which is a more accurate representation of the estimate Perreti gave on the stand than the "between 1 a.m. and 9 a.m." you've changed to now. Regardless, I did respond to your mention of Peretti's estimate when I noted "It's not that I simply ignore such facts, but rather I consider them in the context of the body of evidence as a whole".

If that was the time of death

It's not the time of death, it's one doctor's rough estimate of such based on limited medical information, and it's obviously wrong when considered in the context of the body of evidence as a whole.

When you want to have a civil discussion

I don't consider it civil to make bare assertions and brand people who reject them as hell bent, but I can't stop you from wanting to engage in such behavior.

 

[reedus23]

When you want to have a civil discussion about it let me know. Until then you can go read up on callahans and see what I am talking about.

Just bumping.

 

[kyleb]

How do figure you were bumping there when this thread was already at the top of the list when you made your post?

 

[reedus23]

How do figure you were bumping there when this thread was already at the top of the list when you made your post?

With all due respect, the flaw in your logic with regard to my "bumping" is a perfect example of the flaw in your logic with this case. You only hear and see what you want to hear and see. I never said I was bumping the thread. I could have been simply bumping my post.

Getting back on topic, I take it you don't like the way West of Memphis was produced or edited. I have no problem with it because I take it for what it is, a documentary prepared for mass consumption. Not sure there is anything else to be said.

 

[kyleb]

I never said I was bumping the thread.

Nor have I claimed you did, but rather I simply noted the fact that you obviously hadn't bumped the thread as my reason for inquiring as to what you might've otherwise meant.

I could have been simply bumping my post.

The post you quoted is still right where it was, as posts remain fixed in their order throughout threads. Nobody can't rightly bump a post, by quoting it or otherwise, and your attempt to berate me for respecting such facts is absurd.

I take it you don't like the way West of Memphis was produced or edited.

That's an incredibly superficial take on my stated position here.