Let's talk about motive.

[Dirty larry]

I think that there's no way Echols would have accepted help for his behaviour

And even if he had, his mother wouldn't have.

For example, one of the stipulations of his release from the court ordered Charter stay was that he continue his treatment in Oregon.

When the Oregon DFS payed them a visit, his mother turned them away saying her son needed no further treatment.

And as we know, days later she had him forcibly removed from her home and committed to St. Vincents, telling police she didn't want him to return out of fear for the safety of her family.

There are cases where it can be argued that the parent shares in the responsibility of the childs behavior.

There is no such argument in this case - Pam CLEARLY shares responsibility for this crime.

 

[Nova]

There is no "stereotypical defense argument that the defendant couldn't have committed the crime because he was a choir boy".

However, there is often a defense argument on the likelyhood of a "choir boy" having committed a violent crime, because those who commit violent crime typically have violent histories.

And that reasoning is consistent with either example.

We must have different understandings of the meaning of the word "stereotypical", or else you are being very literal. I thought it was obvious I was referring to what is sometimes called "character witness testimony."

As I've said elsewhere, I don't see the link between Echols' past violent acts and the murders of which he was convicted.

But even if the link were more apparent, there's still the utter lack of forensic evidence tying the defendants to what must have been a very gruesome event. That was my point.

 

[Dirty larry]

We must have different understandings of the meaning of the word "stereotypical", or else you are being very literal.

I'm just being honest and accurate.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to what is sometimes called "character witness testimony."

It was obvious.

However, despite your errant claim, character evidence in no way proves that a defendant couldn't have committed a particular crime, any more than it proves one did, So obviously it's not a "stereotypical" argument.

I don't see the link between Echols' past violent acts and the murders of which he was convicted.

A history of violence tends to indicate that a person is violent.

Violent people most often commit violent crimes.

But even if the link were more apparent

It's not only "apparent", it's a documented fact.

The overwhelming majority of violent offenders have a history of violence.

Doesn't really get any simpler than that.

 

[ziggy]

Except that character evidence is NOT allowed in a trial to show that the defendant is the type of person who would have the propensity to commit the crime for a REASON. We don't convict people on who they are but for what they did. There is no doubt all that occult stuff was brought in as character evidence (you said it yourself DL) but under exceptions offered by the prosecution. But the judge could have and SHOULD have excluded some of it because it's probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Just because a person may have done violent things in the past doesn't mean he did THIS violent action and that is what real EVIDENCE IS FOR, to show that the defendant committed THIS crime - which in this case is completely lacking. Good circumstantial evidence could change my mind.

 

[Dirty larry]

Except that character evidence is NOT allowed in a trial to show that the defendant is the type of person who would have the propensity to commit the crime for a REASON.

Again you are incorrect.

That's exactly the purpose of character evidence, To indicate propensity.

We don't convict people on who they are but for what they did.

And one of the ways this is acheived in a violent criminal case is by showing the defendant has a propensity for violence.

There is no doubt all that occult stuff was brought in as character evidence (you said it yourself DL)

So did Fogleman.

But the judge could have and SHOULD have excluded some of it because it's probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Are you telling us you have read Griffis testimony?

One way you could prove this is by telling us exactly where the probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Just because a person may have done violent things in the past

There's no "may have" to it, and your reluctance to even acknowledge documented fact tends to indicate just how far from objectivity you have drifted.

doesn't mean he did THIS violent action

Nope.

As Fogleman said, it just shows the jury that he's not the person the Defense desperately tried to portray.

that is what real EVIDENCE IS FOR, to show that the defendant committed THIS crime - which in this case is completely lacking.

But then, you wouldn't know, would you?

Good circumstantial evidence could change my mind.

If that were true, you would have looked at the actual trial transcripts BEFORE forming your opinion - you know, just as juries are admonished.

A presumption of innocence, and a predetermination are worlds apart, and you have clearly chosen the latter.