Damien Echols' occult motives

[kyleb]

It is way to easy to talk about babies hanging in trees and great danes having their intestines taken out without it ever having happened.

Perhaps for pathological liars making such stuff up about people is easy, but most people aren't pathological liars. And where are you getting the babies thing, or did you just come up with that on your own?

In fact, last I checked, I was asking you to provide us with one more piece of evidence you alluded to.

Yeah, you were asking me to provide something which I'd already provided, and then you asked again after I quoted myself providing it, and it's something that was presented nearly two decades ago so nobody should rightly need me to provide it. A rather farcical situation.

So your statement that I haven't acknowledged it is about as wrong as you can get.

Well, I suppose you've acknowledged much of the body of evidence to the extent that say Michael Jackson's apologists acknowledge the evidence against him, or to the extent that creationists acknowledge the evidence which substantiates evolution, but I don't use that word in such a superficial sense absent an appropriate qualifier such as barely.

 

[reedus23]

Perhaps for pathological liars making such stuff up about people is easy, but most people aren't pathological liars. And where are you getting the babies thing, or did you just come up with that on your own?

People get too caught up in the hysteria and stories are stretched. You are right though, some have admitted that they lied. The pathological part sounds like a medical term that I'll leave to medical experts. As for the babies thing:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/l_spharler_report.html

Yeah, you were asking me to provide something which I'd already provided, and then you asked again after I quoted myself providing it, and it's something that was presented nearly two decades ago so nobody should rightly need me to provide it. A rather farcical situation.

My apologies then if you did present it to us. I will go back and re-read it.

 

[reedus23]

Well, I suppose you've acknowledged much of the body of evidence to the extent that say Michael Jackson's apologists acknowledge the evidence against him, or to the extent that creationists acknowledge the evidence which substantiates evolution, but I don't use that word in such a superficial sense absent an appropriate qualifier such as barely.

Or one could just as easily say that I have acknowledged it to the same extent that supporters of Darryl Hunt and Richard Jewell acknowledge what evidence was used against them, but simply find that evidence to be extremely lacking.

 

[kyleb]

People get too caught up in the hysteria and stories are stretched.

Sure, the story of Misskelley being subjected to around 12 hours interrogation before confessing being one obvious example of that. However, such examples don't rightly justify simply disregarding whatever stories one chooses to though, Laurie Sphaler's or otherwise.

You are right though, some have admitted that they lied.

Or perhaps they told the truth and have since lied when claiming otherwise, but one has to evaluate the details of such claims along with the evidence surrounding them to rightly determine which is more likely.

one could just as easily say that I have acknowledged it to the same extent that supporters of Darryl Hunt and Richard Jewell acknowledge what evidence was used against them

No, it would be against my principles to say that.

 

[reedus23]

Sure, the story of Misskelley being subjected to around 12 hours interrogation before confessing being one obvious example of that. However, such examples don't rightly justify simply disregarding whatever stories one chooses to though, Laurie Sphaler's or otherwise.

And thus the reason I ask for something to corroborate it. If it can be corroborated. So they're not being totally disregarded, I just give them little weight unless and until they can be corroborated.

Or perhaps they told the truth and have since lied when claiming otherwise, but one has to evaluate the details of such claims along with the evidence surrounding them to rightly determine which is more likely.

And thus the reason I give them zero weight either then or now.

No, it would be against my principles to say that.

It would be against your principles to say that I have acknowledged the evidence against the WM3 just as supporters of Richard Jewell acknowledged the evidence against him? Okay then.

 

[kyleb]

And thus the reason I give them zero weight either then or now.

By thus do you mean you're not interested in evaluating the details of such claims along with the evidence surrounding them to rightly determine whether the original claims or the retractions are the lies? Regardless, you actually did give the retractions weight by claiming the individuals admitted to lying rather than using a neutral term such as claimed.

 

[reedus23]

By thus do you mean you're not interested in evaluating the details of such claims along with the evidence surrounding them to rightly determine whether the original claims or the retractions are the lies? Regardless, you actually did give the retractions weight by claiming the individuals admitted to lying rather than using a neutral term such as claimed.

What word do you want me to use? They admitted to giving false statements? Under oath no less? I'm just stating what they said.

I would listen to anything you might have to add to the discussion of their testimony to see if it sways me but that is one huge hurdle that would have to be overcome. You do realize by retracting their statements, they exposed themselves to criminal prosecution and even civil law suits by the WM3. One doesn't lie later in time by having claimed to have lied earlier in time when the most recent lie exposes them like that.

 

[kyleb]

What word do you want me to use?

You can use whatever words you want, but claiming you aren't given weight to the retractions while using a word which gives those retractions weight is absurd.

I would listen to anything you might have to add to the discussion of their testimony to see if it sways me but that is one huge hurdle that would have to be overcome.

I don't expect you to be swayed by facts.

One doesn't lie later in time by having claimed to have lied earlier in time when the most recent lie exposes them like that.

Some people will as long as they're given the right assurances and incentives.

 

[reedus23]

You can use whatever words you want, but claiming you aren't given weight to the retractions while using a word which gives those retractions weight is absurd.


I don't expect you to be swayed by facts.


Some people will as long as they're given the right assurances and incentives.

I don't believe their testimony and I don't believe their retraction. Is that better?

We won't know unless and until I hear them.

What incentives and assurances were they given? Serious question. I had not heard they were given assurances and incentives.

 

[kyleb]

I wasn't inferring any knowledge of anyone being given such, only pointing out the fact that your "One doesn't lie later" assertion ignores such possibilities. And yeah, believing neither the claims nor the retractions is a good place to start, and from they could always consider the relevant facts surrounding such claims if you ever care to do so.

 

[claudicici]

Well getting back to the topic at hand, I recently stumbled across some early interview footage of Echols where he lets his mask slip for a moment and partially acknowledges his lust for blood:

Damien Echols admits to licking blood - YouTube

This video just so much makes me believe in their innocence once again.\
I also watched this one afterwards

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOCOcw0vRZg"]West Memphis three - Oddities - YouTube[/ame]


You know,I'm not very educated,but it is so obvious to me how these kids were up against complete ignorance.Damien is trying to use common sense and these idiots are putting words into his mouth.It would truly be funny if it wasn't so sad.Just watch it.Or tell me where is this so called evidence you keep talking about that connects these three kids to the crime? Aside from coerced confession and the most ignorant craziest stories I've ever heard in my life,e.g. "occult motives"
Seems like the only ones with half of a brain in the whole town were Damien and Jason.....and that exactly was there downfall.

 

[kyleb]

tell me where is this so called evidence you keep talking about that connects these three kids to the crime?

The three haven't been kids for around two decades now, and I've told you where such evidence can be found at least twice in this thread alone:

I recommend WM3 Truth's The Case Against the WM3, as that provides a far more comprehensive overview of the evidence against the convicted than anything else I've come across.

the the bulk of the evidence presented at trial to demonstrate Echols' involvement in the murders which CR recently created a thread for.

Of course you can keep ignoring that evidence until you are blue in the face, or you could "give away the stone" as Maynard suggests.

 

[reedus23]

I wasn't inferring any knowledge of anyone being given such, only pointing out the fact that your "One doesn't lie later" assertion ignores such possibilities. And yeah, believing neither the claims nor the retractions is a good place to start, and from they could always consider the relevant facts surrounding such claims if you ever care to do so.

I acknowledge there are hardly any absolutes in life, but making a statement that exposes oneself to negative consequences(including admitting to perjury) is rare enough that people much smarter than myself for 100's of years have seen fit to make it an exception to the hearsay rule in many instances.

So what are the relevant facts surrounding such claims. I truly haven't seen any and don't know where to look.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Is everyone keeping up with Damien's little shop? This item is a classic, you know I was one of the people that thought Damien's occult motives were just an exaggeration to try and make himself look cool to his friends, surely he doesn't actually believe this nonsense?

http://www.damienechols.com/store/product/stone-magick-talisman/

Product Description
Labradorite is the ultimate stone of magick. It aids in mastering energy work and manifesting your desires on the physical plane. It allows you to see through illusion and determine the way your goals take shape in the material world. The quartz crystal serves to strengthen and balance the labradorite. I’m doing the energy work to charge them myself. There are only 10, and when they are gone there will be no more.

 

[Cappuccino]

Sounds like standard Wiccan mumbo jumbo to me. I don't think Damien has ever denied he was into Wicca.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Dear Damien: It's a chunk of rock. That is all.

 

[kyleb]

This item is a classic, you know I was one of the people that thought Damien's occult motives were just an exaggeration to try and make himself look cool to his friends, surely he doesn't actually believe this nonsense?

A lot of people believe in such nonsense, including the Wiccans seen donating to Echols in PL2 and some of his supporters throughout this very thread, Echols is hardly unique in that regard. There's even a [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=318"]Forensic Astrology Forum[/ame] here on Websluths, albeit closed years ago. Granted, Echols' far darker occult interests evidenced throughout his testimony, writings, and medical records along with witness statements aren't nearly as common as beliefs in flowery mumbo jumbo like Reiki and Wicca, though he and his supporters obviously prefer to focus on those begin beliefs and ignore the ones which demonstrate motive for committing such horrific murders. I wonder if Berlinger and Sinofsky hadn't bothered read Echols writings and medical records, of if they just didn't feel compelled to mention such facts when they filmed the Wiccans stuffing money into a tin while insisting Echols' beliefs were just as benign as theirs.

 

[reedus23]

Is everyone keeping up with Damien's little shop? This item is a classic, you know I was one of the people that thought Damien's occult motives were just an exaggeration to try and make himself look cool to his friends, surely he doesn't actually believe this nonsense?

http://www.damienechols.com/store/product/stone-magick-talisman/

Product Description
Labradorite is the ultimate stone of magick. It aids in mastering energy work and manifesting your desires on the physical plane. It allows you to see through illusion and determine the way your goals take shape in the material world. The quartz crystal serves to strengthen and balance the labradorite. I’m doing the energy work to charge them myself. There are only 10, and when they are gone there will be no more.

Dunno. Lots of people believe in a lot of wacky things. Some people believe in Xenu. I personally don't but that doesn't make all Xenu followers murderers. To be honest, didn't even click on the link because I'm not sure what that has to do with what happened to Chris, Michael or Stevie.

 

[reedus23]

Dear Damien: It's a chunk of rock. That is all.

Now that did make me laugh.

 

[reedus23]

I don't think any occult beliefs played a part in these murders. It was a convenient platform for the day. An easy out for explaining the unexplainable. There were 2 references to devil worshiping in the notes before the coroner even arrived on the scene. I think one would be hard pressed to say there wasn't "satanic panic" in the area when cult motives were being discussed before a coroner even arrived to ascertain the manner of death. From there, it just ballooned out of control. Over 2 dozen references to the cult, devil, sacrifices, etc... in the first week alone. To me, its just an understandably paranoid community trying to give an explanation to how a human could do such horrific things to another human being and the prosecutors ran with it for lack of any other evidence. They preyed on the public's fears.