The Supposed "Evidence" Against Damien

[reedus23]

Wherever you're taking that from, it's not me.


No, I don't agree with that, and I've already explained why to you. Do you not comprehend the difference between unconfirmed details and details "only the murderer would know", or are you just ignoring the difference for the sake of making an argument?

Then please give me one unconfirmed detail about the murders that Damien voiced and please don't say anything about mutilation, the kids being bound or cut up or one more than another or being submerged in water or drowning. All of those details are either directly stated in media reports or can be reasonably inferred from those reports.

 

[kyleb]

Please see the discussion in the [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214341"]other thread[/ame] we had about why neither the drowning nor one being cut up more than the others can rightly be deduced from the publicly confirmed details of the murders by 5/10 and Echols' explanation for how he came to learn those details, and feel free to carry on the discussion from there rather than trying to start over again here.

 

[reedus23]

Please see the discussion in the other thread we had about why neither the drowning nor one being cut up more than the others can rightly be deduced from the publicly confirmed details of the murders by 5/10 and Echols' explanation for how he came to learn those details, and feel free to carry on the discussion from there rather than trying to start over again here.

I don't remember discussing that fact myself, but I will carry it on over there. Thanks.