Damien Echols' occult motives

[kyleb]

It seems you're having issues coming to terms with the fact that known pedophiles were investigated as potential perpetrators of the murders, Tom Woods and James Kenney Martin being two notable examples.

 

[reedus23]

The same way I explain these notes on Gary Chadwick and the many other documents reguarding invesgation of people who had no connection to occultism: the WMPD considered many possible motivations behind the murders.

There is a big difference between stumbling upon some guy on a bike and singling a kid out. A big difference between reactively looking into someone and proactively seeking someone out of the blue. I don't see anywhere in those documents where they say something along the lines of "I can only think of one person capable of committing these murders and that's Gary Chadwick."

Here is what I'd like to know since you bring Gary Chadwick up. What did the WMPD do to clear this guy? I know he said he got out of jail and told them his whereabouts since then and he took a polygraph but what did they do to corroborate his story? If the WMPD is going to disbelieve one person's statement as to where he had been, why aren't they disbelieving this guy and following up on him? Why not go about trying to see if his story can actually be backed up? Maybe they did it and I missed it in Callahans. If so, it would be greatly appreciated if you could point me in the right direction.

 

[reedus23]

Can anyone else here spot the falsehoods in that? At least the explanations for the first quotes are partially false, I've not looked into the third nearly enough to say one way or another regarding that.

That it's from Macbeth? I don't know that that is a lie. I really don't think that getting that wrong would hurt his credibility. It might hurt him on an English exam, but not at this trial. Simply being able to partially quote it is more than most can do, even if he had the wrong source.

 

[reedus23]

Can anyone else here spot the falsehoods in that? At least the explanations for the first quotes are partially false, I've not looked into the third nearly enough to say one way or another regarding that.

As for the second one, I only see where he has a couple words out of order. For example "soon done" instead of "done soon". Again, don't see where that is a lie.

 

[Miranda!]

The answer to your first question is the fact that that those are the lyrics he chose to write down to the exclusion of the many other things he could've chosen to write at that moment . . . .

What other things? Long range weather forecast? Greek alphabet? Pythagoras Theoem from first principles? Lyrics of 'Moon River'? The ability of plants to apply quantum biology to increase the efficiency of photosynthesis? Give me a break!!

Many totally sane people people keep what is known as a 'Common Place Book'. Similar to a diary but not restricted to having to be done on specific dates or concerning specific dates. Just a way of noting down a thought, an idea, the line of a poem or a quote that struck a chord. Or even the notation of a musical riff!

Many writers, poets or songwriters do this as well as regular people when something memorable springs into mind that want to make sure they remember later!

By its nature it tends to be sequential if it is in a series of notebooks; some may just be in the form of notes to oneself on pieces of paper.

Stephen King and other horror writers must all have fascinating 'common place books' or similar - they must all, by your logic, even have the potential to 'act out' any of the aspects of their jottings. Even some of those who love that genre of literature, and jot down random thoughts or quotes, must also have the potential to morph in to 'child killers'.

Most people, with any imagination, have at some time or another day-dreamed about a big lottery win and what they might then do. Maybe all suspected bank robbers should be asked, as a matter of course, if they have ever thought what they would do if they won the lottery!!

Or have we entered the age of thought-crimes now?

Your psychic abilities amaze me and I am astounded that you have not become a world's leading expert on the direct causal link between a vivid imagination and crime.

What about the links between vacuous minds and crime? By that I mean those who spend hours playing computer games that involve war, murder and mayhem?

Sorry, but using the jottings of a solitary and angst filled teen who enjoys Stephen King type literature as evidence of a disturbed murderer is just too fantastical for me. Even the prosecutors did not recognise a Shakespeare quote! And the jury were very obviously impressed with the illustration of this backwoods thinking.

By the way - should you happen to cut you self or get scratched in the future do not either suck it or lick it as that would be the same as 'drinking' it in your mind and mean that you are a potential vampire!

I must be one, as my cat, but ten minutes ago, broke the skin on my arm and it bled and I put it to my mouth!!

I respect your right to be of the opinion fixé that he is guilty but am saddened that you are unable to see that there is just maybe room for a degree of 'reasonable doubt' to creep in. But please try to use more logic and hard evidence to state your case!!

 

[kyleb]

I don't see anywhere in those documents where they say something along the lines of "I can only think of one person capable of committing these murders and that's Gary Chadwick."

Nor does the notes on the interview with Echols say anything along the lines of that, but rather it says Jones and Sudbury, "shared the same opinion that the murders appeared to have overtones of a cult sacrifice", and that Echols was the one person Jones could could think of who might do such a thing, so they went to talk to him. But then WMPD also investigated many other people who had no interest in the occult and at least a couple others who did, which debunks the absurd notions of Echols tunnel vision.

As for Chadwick, I really don't know anything more about than what is available at Callahan, which is likely not all the documents related to the WMP'Ds investigation of him. That said, do you know if supporters done to clear Chadwick, or have they been too busy focusing their tunnel vision on parents of the victims?

As for the falsehoods in Echols' explanation of the quotes on his notebook, given Echols long standing interest in witchcraft and evil, it seems rather unlikely that he wouldn't remember that he quoted Macbeth on the cover of his notebook rather than a love story. Then there's the quote from ...And Justice For All, which Echols claims is an album that "talks about how warped the court systems are, stuff like that." Can you tell me how any of the songs on that album other than the title track relate to the topic of our court systems, and particularly how that topic relates to the song he quoted from that album?

What other things?

Well for instance Echols could've written about what a sham Reiki is, as others have, but unfortunately neither him nor his supporters seem to have any interest in acknowledging such facts.

 

[reedus23]

It seems you're having issues coming to terms with the fact that known pedophiles were investigated as potential perpetrators of the murders, Tom Woods and James Kenney Martin being two notable examples.

Again, you are actually making my case for me more than not. The first guy was only dealt with because he wouldn't stop calling the WMPD. Beyond that, he was all the way across the country and called about a dream. His past and his obsession with the case are scary, but the LE in Arizona actually confirmed his alibi. WMPD didn't investigate this guy as much as LE in Arizona did the job for them so he's probably not a good example of how the WMPD didn't have tunnel vision. As an aside, take note of how detailed their reports are. Now compare them to the WMPD reports. Night and day difference.

Now, with regard to Martin, what exactly did the WMPD find to rule him out? Did they even confirm that he went to work at 10? The address he gave for work is roughly 5 minutes from the crime scene so did they even know he actually placed himself in the area around the time of the murders? Did they interview anyone else to try to verify what he was doing before 10? Did they ever try to locate his girlfriend Barbara, who he conveniently couldn't remember the last name or phone number of? Did they follow up on the fact that he said Barbara told him between 5:00 and 6:00 on Wednesday that 3 boys were missing when, at that point, no one was reported missing.

So, either there are a lot more notes that aren't on Callahan's, they didn't record it, or you're actually making the case for the WMPD having DamienVision or else why didn't they follow up on this guy? Lord knows they didn't just take Damien's word for his whereabouts.

 

[reedus23]

Nor does the notes on the interview with Echols say anything along the lines of that,

What I said:

"I can only think of one person capable of committing these murders and that's Gary Chadwick."

What the report said:

one person stood out in his mind, that in his opinion, was capable of being involved in this type of crime.

I'd say the notes do say something along those lines. I'll let others judge for themselves if they are similar statements.

 

[reedus23]

As for Chadwick, I really don't know anything more about than what is available at Callahan, which is likely not all the documents related to the WMP'Ds investigation of him. That said, do you know if supporters done to clear Chadwick, or have they been too busy focusing their tunnel vision on parents of the victims?

Fair enough statement about the WMPD files. What I find odd is that there are notes on many other suspects, but rarely do they include anything beyond the initial interview.

You would have to ask them. What I am a supporter of is justice for the 3 kids and if it turns out that the WM3 did not commit the crime, then I am all for justice for them as well. Beyond that, what is truly important here is not what supporters or non-supporters did to clear a person. The important thing is what did the WMPD do to clear a person. It is, after all, their job. Or did their rush to judgment and failure to follow through on various suspects lead to a killer(s) going free and the conviction of 3 innocent people.

 

[reedus23]

As for the falsehoods in Echols' explanation of the quotes on his notebook, given Echols long standing interest in witchcraft and evil, it seems rather unlikely that he wouldn't remember that he quoted Macbeth on the cover of his notebook rather than a love story. Then there's the quote from ...And Justice For All, which Echols claims is an album that "talks about how warped the court systems are, stuff like that." Can you tell me how any of the songs on that album other than the title track relate to the topic of our court systems, and particularly how that topic relates to the song he quoted from that album?

Like I said, I don't think him giving the wrong Shakespeare play is damning evidence or a shot at his credibility. The words still are what they are, for whatever that is worth.

I briefly looked at the lyrics and stopped right away. Frankly, I'm the wrong person to answer because I'm horrible at getting to the meaning behind song lyrics because half the time (this time included) they just don't make any sense to me at all. I do believe I have heard more than one artist say something along the lines of whatever the words mean to you is the meaning of the song, so I suppose you would have to ask Damien why he takes that meaning out of that song or album. My guess is (and it's purely a guess) is that he took that as an opportunity to take a jab at a legal system that he felt was failing him.

 

[Miranda!]

Of course Reiki is not a relegion, but X-ray machines produce variable results, Reiki does not. Since I see you are British, I'll quote a summery of various rulings from the The British Advertising Standards Authority . . .

Had you not bothered to read these before, or did that something you alluded to previously tell you to disregard them?

Thank you so much for reminding me that we have an advertising standards authority over here! Also that we too have some 'quack doctors'.

Snake oil was never a big seller here as we do not have many snakes. What a great financial opportunity we missed!

Anyway, since the inception of the NHS we have not had a gap in the market filled by desperate people needing medical help when they cannot pay for it.

There are now quite a few holistic medical treatments available on the National Health Service. As I said here, or in another thread, I have had acupuncture by my General Practitioner.

Reiki focuses on those same identified 'energy' hot spots as identified by Chinese practioners for more than mere centuries. Whether you chose to accept or dismiss such concepts is down to you. But worth bearing in mind that that same culture built a long wall and had calculated Π (Pi) to way more decimal places than we, in the what was to become the 'civilised western' world, had managed at that juncture!

Anyway I was not comparing X-Rays and Reiki so much as pointing out how different cultures in different ages might perceive them in very different ways!

What you see as 'primitive nonsense' now is totally different to how future generations may look back at our level of civilisation and judge us! For all I know you may not even believe in evolution and therefore not even recognise that , if we do not destroy this planet we inhabit, we may evolve even further! I guess you might even think we are already at our 'peak'. Just as the flat earthers thought back in their time!

Might I remind you that there are many in your culture who believe that the church of scientology is just that! Each to their own.

I find your tone rather offensive in the way you question whether I had 'bothered to read' . . . . I will give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to the zeal and intensity of youth!

I read most of Callahans a good few years ago now and try my level best to keep up when new things are up-loaded. Christian et al do their level best to keep us appraised of new postings but I may have missed some over the years since my first intense immersion!

However I congratulate you on your perspicacity on noticing I am posting from the UK!

 

[kyleb]

Miranda, what makes your defense of Reiki any different in substance than Bible beating Christians who defend the notion that they're invigorated by the power of Jesus? I'd asked if you'd read this page I keep linking, because it compiles information from and provides links to a variety of sources which go a long way towards proving Reiki has no basis in reality, yet in response you just defend Reiki with vague platitudes and bare assertions interspersed with projections of beliefs upon me which are far from my own. So is there any chance you'd be willing to stick to discussing facts, and either present whatever you believe might be actual evidence to substantiate beliefs in Reiki, or at least admit that that you've yet to find anything of the sort?

 

[Miranda!]

So, who is telling the truth between you and Echols here: you who claim Echols got some of his ideas from the Satanic Bible, or Echols who claimed he'd never read anything from LeVey?

'If you are not with us you are agin us'​

It is not binary logic so do not try and make it such.

It is quite possible that, having never read said bible, he had read what others wrote who had read it. We are dealing with human being here and not simple two state machines.
Or he might have read odd bits but not cover to cover which, could mean in his mind that he had not read [the entire] work or works or that he might just have read extracts in other books!
Or he might have lied.

And that makes him a murderer of kids?

Noted with wry amusement the use of upper case S and B when talking about the satanic bible....

 

[reedus23]

And that makes him a murderer of kids?

This is what is so dangerous about that kind of logic. It can lead to convictions of innocent people because of things extraneous to the case itself.

 

[Miranda!]

Miranda, what makes your defense of Reiki any different in substance than Bible beating Christians who defend the notion that they're invigorated by the power of Jesus? I'd asked if you'd read this page I keep linking, because it compiles information from and provides links to a variety of sources which go a long way towards proving Reiki has no basis in reality, yet in response you just defend Reiki

As I do not consider anything remotely 'religious' about Reiki or any other alternative holistic medical tradition that has been adopted by some in the West I see now purpose in comparing Bible thumping OTT extremism with Reiki or any other alternative therapies. Nor would I dream of defending something like Bible beating Christians as you describe. Nor am I 'defending' Reiki - merely pointing out that some people do believe that it, and other theories / practices, can help is certain situations!

I am afraid I am too old fashioned to take what can be read on the internet as gospel! I prefer those old fashioned things called books! One never knows who or what is behind many web sites as one does about reputable ublishing houses!

 

[kyleb]

It is not binary logic so do not try and make it such.

Whether or not Echols had read anything by LeVey before he said on the stand that he hadn't is a binary matter of fact, both cannot be true, only one or the other. Do you not comprehend this?

And that makes him a murderer of kids?

Not even close. Why do you insist in inventing such failures in logic and projecting them upon me?

Noted with wry amusement the use of upper case S and B when talking about the satanic bible....

You find it amusing that I use capitalization for titles of books?

As I do not consider anything remotely 'religious' about Reiki

I'm not suggesting Reiki is a religion, but rather simply that it's snake oil to use a term you've brought up here previously. You've made arguments to the contrary, but you've yet to cite a single source to support them, neither sources such as books reputable publishing houses nor otherwise. So is there any chance you'd be willing to stick to discussing facts, and either present whatever you believe might be actual evidence to substantiate beliefs in Reiki, or at least admit that that you've yet to find anything of the sort?

 

[reedus23]

I have got to say kyle, your signature line or whatever they call it, just jumps out at me every time I see your posts. I find it very intriguing that with your strong convictions in this case, that you include a quote from a Michael Jackson song. Don't get me wrong, I actually had his music sitting right next to Metallica and Motley Crue, but it just jumps out at me because of the nature of the WM3 case and Michael's own cases. Sorry for the sidebar. Carry on.

 

[claudicici]

'If you are not with us you are agin us'​

It is not binary logic so do not try and make it such.

It is quite possible that, having never read said bible, he had read what others wrote who had read it. We are dealing with human being here and not simple two state machines.
Or he might have read odd bits but not cover to cover which, could mean in his mind that he had not read [the entire] work or works or that he might just have read extracts in other books!
Or he might have lied.

And that makes him a murderer of kids?

Noted with wry amusement the use of upper case S and B when talking about the satanic bible....

Never mind,Miranda you must have missed Kylebs post were he now no longer believes Damien lied about that.
Quote:

"That said, I suspect Echols might've been telling the truth when he said he never read LeVey, as LaVeyan Satanism isn't really occult at all, but rather simply a philosophical system which uses the Christian concept of Satan as a symbol for the rejection of puritanical dogma. The Church of Satan does engage in rituals, but they're done purely for their psychological effects, not based on any fanciful notions of conjuring demons or such which infatuated Echols. So I figure Echols likely didn't ever read the Satanic Bible, and he probably would've become more grounded in reality if he had."

I think he now believes Echols got those deeper and darker occult motives to murder children from Macbeth and lied about that?

 

[claudicici]

Not even close. Why do you insist in inventing such failures in logic and projecting them upon me?

You started the thread.So you obviously believe Echols killed children because of his interest in the occult.

 

[kyleb]

I have got to say kyle, your signature line or whatever they call it, just jumps out at me every time I see your posts. I find it very intriguing that with your strong convictions in this case, that you include a quote from a Michael Jackson song.

The quotes in my signature are there because I consider them insightful and relevant to the discussion at hand, and the source of such statements are irrelevant to me beyond the extent of giving credit where credit is due. As for Jackson, I've never been a fan of his, or pop in general for that matter, and the only album of his I ever owned from him was a gift from someone who barely knew me. That said, find your tendency to accuse various facts of jumping out at you very interesting, since in reality such facts are inanimate things so it's obviously you who has chosen to jump on them.

Never mind,Miranda you must have missed Kylebs post were he now no longer believes Damien lied about that.

It's not a matter of no longer, I've never imagined Echols had read LeVey.

I think he now believes Echols got those deeper and darker occult motives to murder children from Macbeth and lied about that?

Rather, I simply suspect knew that quote on the cover page of his notebook was from a story about evil and witchcraft rather than the love story he attributed it to when asked at trial. As to were Echols got his very dark occult motives, I figure he likely came up with those on his own by stringing together bits and pieces of what he wanted to believe from all sorts of sources and filling in the blanks as he pleased, much like KKK types or anti-abortion terrorists do with their Christian motives, or al-Queda types and Islam, or the Bolsheviks and their atheism.

You started the thread.So you obviously believe Echols killed children because of his interest in the occult.

More specifically, I believe Echols would've murdered regardless if he'd ever heard of the occult at all, while his occult beliefs simply motivated him to commit the particular murders which he did. I've never believed as Miranda suggested though, that Echols' in response to the question of him having read anything from LeVey "he might have lied" and in turn "that makes him a murderer of kids". Rather, it's the evidence which connects him to the murders from which I conclude he committed them, while his well document occult interests which he's been so far from forthcoming about since the murders simply demonstrate why he committed the particular murders which he did.

That said, given how so many are quick to assume to know why I believe Echols committed the murders, I want to share what I suspect is the reason so many people are intent on arguing otherwise. I'll turn to good ol' Manyand for that one though, as he summed up the way I suspect supporters see Echols better than I ever could hope to. From the song Eulegy:

Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice so strong and loud and I
Swallowed his facade cuz I'm so
Eager to identify with
Someone above the ground,
Someone who seemed to feel the same,
Someone prepared to lead the way, with
Someone who would die for me

That seems to explain why so many people here aren't even willing to acknowledge the evidence which suggests Reiki is nothing more than snake oil, let alone come to terms with the well documented details of Echols' far darker beliefs which are the topic of this thread, and also why there's so little interest in discussing the the bulk of the evidence presented at trial to demonstrate Echols' involvement in the murders which [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212828"]CR recently created a thread for[/ame]. Granted I'm just speculating here, as I don't assume know what goes on in others' minds beyond what I take them at their words about.