The Supposed "Evidence" Against Damien

[Cappuccino]

Its possible. I've also wondered at times if it was L.G. Hollingsworth, given the irregularities in his alibi. Who knows?

 

[reedus23]

Right, you falsely attributed words to Fogleman rather than acknowledging what he actually said, and you continue misrepresent what he said to cast accusations of deception on him. Have you ever considered making a list of how many people you have to believe have been dishonest to maintain your doubt that the three committed the murders?

When you can't attack the message attack the messenger. :tsktsk:

And you are falsely attributing words to me about falsely attributing words to Fogleman. Now how do you feel? I acknowledged what he said. He said, in other words, "Here are my witnesses. They are 100% believable in 50% of what they say." Is that better? I thought your word was deceptive? Now it's dishonest? I have my personal feelings about some involved in this case but those have little to do with doubt. Doubt is created by the lack of evidence. This case definitely lacks evidence.

 

[reedus23]

Fogleman wasn't cherry picking, but rather asking the jury to consider Teer's similarity in appearance to Baldwin along with the other evidence presented against him, and evaluate the Hollingsworths' belief that they saw Teer in that context. Cherry picking is the essentially the opposite, when one clings to a few bits of evidence as an excuse to ignore the rest, and fixating on Fogleman's supposition to ignore the Hollingsworths' testimony along with all the other evidence which connects Echols to the murders is one of the many textbook example of that which are commonly used to create the illusion of innocence in this case. Hence the reason I keep pointing out supporters inability to produce a comprehensive analysis of the evidence which makes the case for reasonable doubt, because it's impossible to do as much without cherry picking like all the movies and other mainstream accounts of the case do.

You are better off conceding losing points than continuing to put forth unsustainable arguments. How in the heck can you say Fogleman wasn't cherry picking? If he wasn't cherry picking, then it was Domini there and let's stop talking about Jason being there. Done. Over. No more of this person morphing argument. If you want to argue Domini morphed into Jason, then you have to ignore a portion of their testimony and that is picking and choosing which portions to believe and THAT IS CHERRY PICKING.

 

[reedus23]

Its possible. I've also wondered at times if it was L.G. Hollingsworth, given the irregularities in his alibi. Who knows?

Thought had crossed my mind as well.

 

[Cappuccino]

Thought had crossed my mind as well.

Mind you, if the Hollingsworths misidentified L.G as Damien, I don't believe it would have been by mistake. It would have been deliberate perjury. And the more I look at Narlene's statements the more difficult I find it to believe that she would perjure herself to protect L.G.

At times, she almost seems to be pointing the finger deliberately at him.

 

[reedus23]

Mind you, if the Hollingsworths misidentified L.G as Damien, I don't believe it would have been by mistake. It would have been deliberate perjury. And the more I look at Narlene's statements the more difficult I find it to believe that she would perjure herself to protect L.G.

At times, she almost seems to be pointing the finger deliberately at him.

I remember in my first go through of the investigative reports, I remember being shocked that a family member was pointing the finger at another family member. At the time, I figured there is either a really screwed up family dynamic in play or there is some merit to what was being said. Just don't see family members pointing the finger at other family members unless one of those 2 things are at play.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Given the fact that L.G. was a suspect for a brief time and the assertions in the recent affidavits, is it possible that Narlene's finger-pointing was a deliberate attempt to mislead? What I'm saying here is that, by practically implicating L.G. was she really trying to make him seem innocent when she suspected him to be guilty? Just a thought.

 

[kyleb]

Nobody here but me wants to talk about rest of the evidence presented against Echols at trial, eh?

 

[Hez]

Nobody here but me wants to talk about rest of the evidence presented against Echols at trial, eh?

Pretty much. By your own admission, you've only followed this case for a relatively short time in comparison to the majority of posters here. Yet it is clear your mind is completely made up and you are firmly entrenched in your beliefs. It appears you're more about just proving everyone else wrong, as opposed to discussing the facts as they haven presented to you. :twocents:

 

[kyleb]

I'm always happy to change my position on any matter whenever I come across facts which contradict it, and have thanked Cappuccino twice for proving me wrong in this thread alone, regarding the wax and Rick Hollingsworth. What facts are you accusing me of ignoring here specifically?

 

[reedus23]

Nobody here but me wants to talk about rest of the evidence presented against Echols at trial, eh?

I think they were discussing the Hollingsworth evidence.

I am curious as to the other item of evidence you had referred to before. I think you said it was in Ridge's testimony.

So far we have:

1. Damien's lifestyle/writing (1 and 2 from CR).
2. Fibers
3. Girl's club girls
4. Hollingsworth crew
5. Lake knife
6. Sticks
7. Wax
8. Hairs
9. Jessie's statement.
10. ?????kyle?????

 

[kyleb]

I narrowed it down to the notable stuff in this post:

It seems to me to that consider the evidence weak one would have to assume the following:

1. Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth were lying or confused about seeing Echols near the scene of the murders covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies in the creek would be.
   
   
2. Either Jodee Medford and Christi VanVickle were lying confused when they told Jodee's mother Donna that they'd just heard Echols brag about committing the murders, or they were both lied along so did Donna Medford when she testified confirmed that her daughter and Cristy told her Echols he bragged about committing the murders at the softball game as soon as the girls got in the car with her to leave.
   
   
3. Bryn Ridge was lying or confused regarding Echols' knowledge regarding unconfirmed details of the murders.
   
   
4. The consistency between wounds on the victims and survival knife just some wild coincidence. or perhaps the result of some level of conspiracy.

Am I including unnecessarily supposition in that, or do those who argue the jury should've found reasonable doubt not comprehend the fact that juries are required to focus on the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense rather than dream up ways to do otherwise?

 

[Cappuccino]

Given the fact that L.G. was a suspect for a brief time and the assertions in the recent affidavits, is it possible that Narlene's finger-pointing was a deliberate attempt to mislead? What I'm saying here is that, by practically implicating L.G. was she really trying to make him seem innocent when she suspected him to be guilty? Just a thought.

Its possible, but I don't think its very likely. Far more likely that Narlene pointed the finger at L.G. because she wanted to lead the police straight to him. And she wanted to do that because she thought he was guilty.

 

[Cappuccino]

Nobody here but me wants to talk about rest of the evidence presented against Echols at trial, eh?

Yes, I can well see why you would want to change the subject as quick as possible. But I'm by no means finished with the Hollingsworths yet.

We haven't discussed, for example, Narlene's claim that she saw all three victims on three separate bicycles outside Weaver Elementary at 4.30 - 5.00pm on the evening of the murders.

How credible do you think that claim is, compared to all the other witness statements about the boys' whereabouts within that time frame? And what do you make of Narlene Hollingsworths' claim to have seen the three children on three separate bicycles?

 

[kyleb]

Yes, I can well see why you would want to change the subject as quick as possible.

I doubt you see that I've no interest in humoring wild speculation that L. G. was involved in the murders and other Hollingsworths conspired to cover for him.

But I'm by no means finished with the Hollingsworths yet.

Well then, feel free to quit beating around the bush and answer your own questions if you actually believe there is any substantive point relevant to the topic of this thread to be made by doing so. Also, if you've seen the argument you're angling for with your questions well presented by someone else previously, please cite that.

 

[Cappuccino]

I doubt you see that I've no interest in humoring wild speculation that L. G. was involved in the murders the Hollingsworths conspired to cover for him.

Um....whatever you say.

Well then, feel free to quit beating around the bush and answer your own questions if you actually believe there is any substantive point relevant to the topic of this thread to be made by doing so. Also, if you've seen the argument you're angling for with your questions well presented by someone else previously, please cite that.

Answer the questions please. The Hollingsworths are witnesses for the prosecution, so how come Narlene saw something impossible at 4.30-5.00 pm that afternoon?

 

[kyleb]

Nobody sees things which are impossible. Sometimes honest mistakes or dishonest intentions result in people claiming to have seen things which are impossible, but what's impossible inherently can't be seen. As for your previous questions regarding what Narlene said she saw around 4:45 on the day of the murders, I've not done nearly enough research on that topic to even know if they can be answered with any reasonable degree of certainty, which is why I ask that you stop beating around the bush and get to your point if you actually have one worthy of consideration.

 

[Cappuccino]

Nobody sees things which are impossible

Apparently one of the prosecution witnesses against Damien Echols does just that. On a fairly regularly basis.

Get back when you've looked up where Steven, Christopher and Michael were between 4.30 and 5.00pm. And how many bicycles were involved.

 

[kyleb]

Apparently one of the prosecution witnesses against Damien Echols does just that. On a fairly regularly basis.

I suspect you simply misunderstand the situation on a fairly regular basis.

Get back when you've looked up where Steven, Christopher and Michael were between 4.30 and 5.00pm.

I'm quite sure I've never done what you claim I have, and am quite curious as to how you managed to conclude otherwise.

 

[reedus23]

Yes, I can well see why you would want to change the subject as quick as possible. But I'm by no means finished with the Hollingsworths yet.

We haven't discussed, for example, Narlene's claim that she saw all three victims on three separate bicycles outside Weaver Elementary at 4.30 - 5.00pm on the evening of the murders.

How credible do you think that claim is, compared to all the other witness statements about the boys' whereabouts within that time frame? And what do you make of Narlene Hollingsworths' claim to have seen the three children on three separate bicycles?

Here is a question that has been in the back of my head since first reading callahans. I never see it asked, but hopefully it was. Drugs seemed to be fairly rampant in the community. I would have liked to have known if any of the witnesses(Narlene included) had been drinking or taken any drugs prior to whatever events they are giving statements about. For example, I don't recall ever seeing it asked of Narlene and it would have been one of the first questions I would have asked her. It's a pretty routine and standard question to ask of witnesses and if she had been drinking or had been smoking marijuana or taken some other drug, that obviously would have impacted her ability to accurately observe and recall events. Was this ever asked and I just missed it?