Why did the WM3 do it?

[mattfz]

Well assuming Misskelley was telling the truth regarding who mutilated Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, that pegs Baldwin as quite crazy in his own right, just not overtly so to anywhere near the extent which earned Echols his extensively documented mental heath history.

On a side note, while I find the wild finger pointing at Terry Hobbs as revolting as that which was previously directed at Mark Byers, at least I can take solace in seeing so many supporters of the convicted aren't buying into the defense's completely unsubstantiated claims of animal predation and no knifes.

The claims aren't unsubstantiated-- they are backed by the professional opinions of 6 or 7 independent, well-known, published certified medical examiners. And they happen to all agree that it was animal predation. Put that against one opinion by the "medical examiner" of Crittenden County, Arkansas, who wasn't able to earn his certification. Oh, and throw in there that Arkansas has a strange law that makes a medical examiner an arm of the prosecution, who answers to the government.

Now.... If you are a juror, you can weigh the expertise of the expert witnesses' testimony to determine who is most credible. It seems fairly obvious who is the most credible :banghead:

 

[kyleb]

I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

 

[ceecee30]

I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

Wouldn't that make the medical examiners opinion unsubstantiated??

Because he was only using his opinion??

Personally if I was a juror I'd be inclined to back the 6-7 experts making the same "unsubstantiated claims" than one medical examiner doing exactly the same.

 

[reedus23]

I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

kyle, I'm curious to know what evidence or facts causes you to give credence to the medical examiner's opinion?

 

[mattfz]

I don't weigh claims based on the credentials of those making them, but rather on the evidence presented to back them. And in that regard the claims that all of the wounds are from animal predation are wholly unsubstantiated.

Use some logic and think about it. The murders were extremely violent, with at least some evidence that one of the little boys was raped anally, tied by their hands and feet, and chucked into a ditch to drown. But during that, the killer/killers took time to tap them on their bodies and scratch them with the serrated edge of the knife. Oh, and their wasn't evidence of any stabs or cuts with the knife, just scrapes like Fogelman demonstrated on that damn grapefruit. It. Simply. Does. Not. Fit.

 

[raynjuls]

^^^^^ So "Boys will be boys"? Is that what passes for a theory of the crime these days?

Not really what I said... Echols clearly had mental issues, and wanted to act on his fantasies / beliefs... the other two probably just followed his lead... again without much thought to what would happen after. Sorry, but 'theory of the crime' need not be overly complex particularly in a case as senseless and vicious as this...

 

[terekaugelt]

I am too busy to watch West of Memphis once more today (will do so tomorrow) but the essential logic is this: Peretti presented a forensic pathology "Bible" textbook as evidence[ at court (there is a scene where he actually hands it to the court to be included in evidence) and so Jackson and Co went straight to the author of that textbook. Who said that the description of the data was totally OK but the interpretation of the data was absolutely wrong. And also said most of the wounds, particularly the ones that probably affected the jury the most (he use the term "warped their judgement") when presented as torture wounds were actually the result of post-mortem animal predation. He had no doubts about it - and he was the authority figure that Peretti used to convince the jury of his interpretation.
I'll try to find time to watch the film again tomorrow and give all the exact names and quotes. But in the essentials I am 100 per cent correct.

Oh, and BTW, nobody, and really mean nobody has ever claimed that all the wounds were caused by animal predation. The poor boys did not die of animal predation, nobody has ever made this preposterous claim - this is just a typical straw man. The main cause was trauma caused by a blunt instrument (interestingly to the same area in the case of all three boys) and ultimately drowning.
But the way, as presented by Peretti to the juries was that all of the wounds were very much pre-mortem, i.e. occurred when the boys were still very much alive, that the injuries to one of the boy's penis were due to sexually deviant and extremely bloodthirsty behaviour of the attackers (Jason, of all persons, if one believes Jessie's "confessions"!). This certainly "warped the jurors' judgement".
I'll give the exact names and quotes tomorrow.

 

[kyleb]

Wouldn't that make the medical examiners opinion unsubstantiated??

Well Peretti suggested the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead were from a belt buckle, and like with the claims of human bite marks and animal predation, of I've yet to see a belt buckle which is consistent with those wounds either. Absent substantiation of any of those alternative claims, I'm left to figure those wounds came from a Special Forces Survival II knife, most likely the one found behind Baldwin's home.

Personally if I was a juror I'd be inclined to back the 6-7 experts making the same "unsubstantiated claims" than one medical examiner doing exactly the same.

Peretti presented autopsy photos of specific wounds along with the survival knife itself to substantiate their claims of consistency, so if you were a juror you'd have had a chance to study them and check the measurements for yourself just as Fogleman asked the jury to do. What inclines you to ignore such facts, and what inclines you away from acknowledging the consistency between the survival knife and the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which I demonstrated in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202132"]this thread[/ame]?

kyle, I'm curious to know what evidence or facts causes you to give credence to the medical examiner's opinion?

I don't give credence to opinions. Any chance you can explain how you imagined otherwise?

Echols clearly had mental issues, and wanted to act on his fantasies / beliefs... the other two probably just followed his lead... again without much thought to what would happen after.

Assuming Misskelley was honest about who was responsible for the mutilation of Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, Baldwin arguably had worse mental issues than Echols, just not overtly so like Echols. Perhaps the intent wasn't to murder at the start but Baldwin brought things past the point of no return with the degloving, at which point Christopher Byers was bound to die and Stevie Branch and Michel Moore were witnesses which were sure to tell had they lived.

 

[ceecee30]

Kyle I will reply to you shortly...

MODS - is acceptable to post the photos of the young boys on here? They're very graphic so wanted to check first

 

[ceecee30]

Well Peretti suggested the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead were from a belt buckle, and like with the claims of human bite marks and animal predation, of I've yet to see a belt buckle which is consistent with those wounds either. Absent substantiation of any of those alternative claims, I'm left to figure those wounds came from a Special Forces Survival II knife, most likely the one found behind Baldwin's home.


Peretti presented autopsy photos of specific wounds along with the survival knife itself to substantiate their claims of consistency, so if you were a juror you'd have had a chance to study them and check the measurements for yourself just as Fogleman asked the jury to do. What inclines you to ignore such facts, and what inclines you away from acknowledging the consistency between the survival knife and the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which I demonstrated in this thread?

Personally I've seen the photos, now I'm no expert and I've never seen anything but a cut finger/hand from a knife (in person, however i have seen numerous photos of stabwounds from another forum which is specifically death photos) so I can only give my personal opinion and looking at the wounds under the brow line I'm more inclined to say these are fingernail marks/something similar... I have my own photo to upload, but would like a mod to say its ok first..

There was a photo I saw with the wound having a somewhat t shaped appearance so in my own opinion peretti could be correct there.

 

[kyleb]

The wounds under Stevie Branch's brow ridge look far more consistent with the survival knife than any fingernail marks or anything else I've ever seen. Also, the semicircle above looks far more consistent with the hilt of that survival knife than anything else I've ever seen. and a wider shot of Stevie Branch's face which shows comparable semicircles on his cheek can be seen at about 146:40 in PL2, which I'll link along with the warning that picture is rather grotesque. If you have evidence to suggest any of the wounds which have been suggested are consistent with the lake knife actually aren't but which you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, please private message it to me.

 

[ceecee30]

The wounds under Stevie Branch's brow ridge look far more consistent with the survival knife than any fingernail marks or anything else I've ever seen. Also, the semicircle above looks far more consistent with the hilt of that survival knife than anything else I've ever seen. and a wider shot of Stevie Branch's face which shows comparable semicircles on his cheek can be seen at about 146:40 in PL2, which I'll link along with the warning that picture is rather grotesque. If you have evidence to suggest any of the wounds which have been suggested are consistent with the lake knife actually aren't but which you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, please private message it to me.

It's not that I'm not comfortable, I don't know forum rules on graphic pictures and just trying to do the right thing as a WS forum member..

Since you've posted pics ill happily share the pics I have found

I'm not saying they aren't consistent, I'm also not saying they are consistent either.

Could you be so kind to tell me where I may find pictures of the knife so I can look at it on my computer side by side to the facial wounds on Stevie Branch. TIA

 

[ceecee30]

The second picture with the T-Shaped mark to the left side of head I believe is consistent with a belt buckle..

If you hit someone on the head with a belt buckle with enough force I'd assume this is the sort of mark you'd see.

The first picture I know you have but I attached it as I still genuinely believe it looks like fingernail marks, same crescent type shape as you'd see from fingernails applied with extreme force.

To be completely honest I just can't see how they were made with a knife, but again I'm no expert I'm just going by visually what I see and assume made the marks

 

[kyleb]

Of course I'm happy to provide a link to images of the survival knife, and a photo of the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which includes a tape measure so you can check the scale against the photos of the knife.

Anyway, I do see what you're saying about fingernail marks in a general sense, but specifically the laceration closest to the nose is really more L-shaped than crescent like a fingernail, and matches well with the shape and scale of the saw teeth on the survival knife. Then there's the next one over, which taken alone I'd say looks more like a finger nail mark than anything, but it's shaped consistent with the survival knife too, and it's spacing from the aforementioned laceration next to the nose is consistent with the spacing between teeth on the saw edge of the knife. Given all that along with the rest of the evidence such as the semicircles which are consistent in shape and scale with the hilt of the knife, I've yet to find any reason to believe those wounds came from anything other that knife being pressed up against Stevie Branch's head.

As for the other photo you linked, I've seen that before, and those look to me like stab wounds, though without any distinguishing features to make them more consistent with the survival knife than a wide variety of other knife designs. Also, I've seen it argued that they couldn't be stab wounds because there was no underlying damage to the skull, but I've not seen anything to suggest an effort was made to look for underlying bone damage during the autopsy, so I'm at a loss as to how anyone could rightly rule out the possibility that they are in fact stab wounds from some knife.

And since were sharing photos, here's one which has been specifiably argued as claw marks from some sort of animal, but which are quite constant with the saw edge of the survival knife:

At first glance I thought the spacing of those five closely grouped scratches are far too close together to be from the survival knife, but upon pondering it a bit more I realized it is quite consistent with two strokes from the knife. Looking at the scratches from top left to bottom right, the first, third, and fifth were apparently made in one stroke, and the second and fourth with another stroke, taking into account that the chest is curved and that pressing a knife against it will spread out the skin as it's pressed flat. Anyway, I'm curious to hear your opinion on those wounds.

 

[ceecee30]

Of course I'm happy to provide a link to images of the survival knife, and a photo of the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which includes a tape measure so you can check the scale against the photos of the knife.

Anyway, I do see what you're saying about fingernail marks in a general sense, but specifically the laceration closest to the nose is really more L-shaped than crescent like a fingernail, and matches well with the shape and scale of the saw teeth on the survival knife. Then there's the next one over, which taken alone I'd say looks more like a finger nail mark than anything, but it's shaped consistent with the survival knife too, and it's spacing from the aforementioned laceration next to the nose is consistent with the spacing between teeth on the saw edge of the knife. Given all that along with the rest of the evidence such as the semicircles which are consistent in shape and scale with the hilt of the knife, I've yet to find any reason to believe those wounds came from anything other that knife being pressed up against Stevie Branch's head.

As for the other photo you linked, I've seen that before, and those look to me like stab wounds, though without any distinguishing features to make them more consistent with the survival knife than a wide variety of other knife designs. Also, I've seen it argued that they couldn't be stab wounds because there was no underlying damage to the skull, but I've not seen anything to suggest an effort was made to look for underlying bone damage during the autopsy, so I'm at a loss as to how anyone could rightly rule out the possibility that they are in fact stab wounds from some knife.

And since were sharing photos, here's one which has been specifiably argued as claw marks from some sort of animal, but which are quite constant with the saw edge of the survival knife:

At first glance I thought the spacing of those five closely grouped scratches are far too close together to be from the survival knife, but upon pondering it a bit more I realized it is quite consistent with two strokes from the knife. Looking at the scratches from top left to bottom right, the first and third were apparently made in one stroke, and the second, fourth and fifth with another stroke, taking into account that the chest is curved and that pressing a knife against it will spread out the skin as it's pressed flat. Anyway, I'm curious to hear your opinion on those wounds.

I can see where it could be interpreted as claw marks, but as an animal owner myself and scratched numerous times by domestic animals, cats (spacing too close to be a domestic cat) a British bulldog (spacing again too close) and a ridgeback (again the spacing of the scratches are too close) can't say that either three animals I've listed would cause those particular marks.

Again I'm an Australian so my knowledge of wildlife in west Memphis is limited (and if you could enlighten me as to what wildlife would be in the region, I could make a better guess.. As unfortunately that's all I can do!)

We can agree to disagree on the forehead markings but I have to say that knowing what the survival knife looks like.. Then it could be a culprit in those particular scratchings on the (assuming) chest area

The reason I asked about the knife images and wildlife is that here in Australia our wildlife is so different to USA and the knife I don't think I've ever seen an Aussie survival knife like that...

*EDIT* However having a look again at the picture, it could be a smaller style dog more like your shitzu/Maltese sizing. As their scratches could be consistent with the spacing

 

[gheckso]

Those scraps also look like they could have been caused by being dragged over a rough surface, something like roughly troweled concrete. The marks appear to have a layout similar to that of a trowel.

I believe these marks have been discussed on another thread in some depth also. Link I don't remember anyone attributing them to claw marks there but they may have. The deeper gouge may have been an irregularity in the concrete like exposed aggregate.


Just some thoughts. I know some people do not like the MHT but this is a discussion.

 

[ceecee30]

Those scraps also look like they could have been caused by being dragged over a rough surface, something like roughly troweled concrete. The marks appear to have a layout similar to that of a trowel.

I believe these marks have been discussed on another thread in some depth also. Link I don't remember anyone attributing them to claw marks there but they may have. The deeper gouge may have been an irregularity in the concrete like exposed aggregate.


Just some thoughts. I know some people do not like the MHT but this is a discussion.

I didn't even think of that! The scratches looked familiar, now that you mention the dragging on a rough surface ie. concrete I think that's extremely plausible..

 

[kyleb]

if you could enlighten me as to what wildlife would be in the region, I could make a better guess

I don't see why anyone else should put effort into guessing when the experts claiming they are claw marks are so coy about not saying what kind of animal they think they claw marks are from. For all any of us can know, they might imagine it was a sasquatch, or a chupacabra, but are rightly too embarrassed to say as much. If someone could show an example of a claw, or trowed concrete, which would leave comparable scrapes: with the first, third, and fifth starting slightly higher than the second and fourth, and all the cuts deeper on on side than the other and with spots of smooth skin in between, then there would be a reasonable argument that they might have been made something other than the knife found behind Baldwin's house. Absent that, I'm left to figure people are simply overlooking the obvious.

We can agree to disagree on the forehead markings

Are you unwilling to explain your disagreement regarding the forehead markings, and what about the semicircles on the cheek?

I don't remember anyone attributing them to claw marks there but they may have.

Not there, here:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBbdsZKRaTU"]WM3.org - Damien Echols - Defense Press Conference - Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]

But they're just making assertions there, not providing any evidence to actually substantiate them, and literally waving their hands at the constancy between the spacing of the saw edge of of the knife and the scrapes.

 

[ceecee30]

I don't see why anyone else should put effort into guessing when the experts claiming they are claw marks are so coy about not saying what kind of animal they think they claw marks are from. For all any of us can know, they might imagine it was a bigfoot, or chupacarbras, but are too embarrassed to say as much. If someone could show an example of a claw, or trowed concrete, which would leave comparable scrapes: with the first, third, and fifth starting slightly higher than the second and fourth, and all the cuts deeper on on side than the other and with spots of smooth skin in between, then there would be a reasonable argument that they might have been made something other than the knife found behind Baldwin's house. Absent that, I'm left to figure people are simply overlooking the obvious.


Are you unwilling to explain your disagreement regarding the forehead markings, and what about the circles on the cheek?
.

In relation to your first snipped quote, I am merely making a guess as to what animal caused the claw marks, since the experts believe it was animal predation.

I'm not unwilling to explain I just stated we can agree to disagree as you have very strong views on what you believe caused the wounds... But I don't have such quite strong views as you because I'm a fence sitter... I wish I had such strong views as yourself.

That and you have a far better overall knowledge of the case

 

[kyleb]

I am merely making a guess as to what animal caused the claw marks, since the experts believe it was animal predation.

But as long as they are just making vague claims without presenting any actual evidence to substantiate them, why should you anyone else bother to speculate on those claims? Just because they are made by a few people with fancy credentials?

I'm not unwilling to explain I just stated we can agree to disagree as you have very strong views on what you believe caused the wounds... But I don't have such quite strong views as you because I'm a fence sitter... I wish I had such strong views as yourself.

My view is simply based on evaluating the evidence I've seen, so if you provide evidence to substantiate your disagreement, my view will change with respect to that.