The Supposed "Evidence" Against Damien

[kyleb]

Yes, the Antony and Narlene Hollinsworth's testimony is weak evidence against Baldwin, as I acknowledged in my first post in this thread, but again this thread isn't about Baldwin. That said, where is there any evidence to suggest Hollinsworths' weren't familiar enough with Echols to accurately identify him testified to have doing on the stand? Given Echols undeniably unique appearance and redundancy to walk around that neighborhood, it seems hard to imagine that all but the worst of shut-ins wouldn't reconcile him at a glance, let alone the cousins of a girl he'd impregnated. In that regard, does anyone know when Echols and Teer first hooked up?

 

[Cappuccino]

The Hollingsworths evidence doesn't offer any evidence against Baldwin at all, not even weak evidence.

That said, where is there any evidence to suggest Hollinsworths' weren't familiar enough with Echols to accurately identify him testified to have doing on the stand?

Narlene said in her police statement of the 10th May that she doesn't know Damien all that well and doesn't let her kids hang with him because he's evil. I'm paraphrasing, here's the quote...

HESTER: How long have you known them?

NARLENE: Well, I don’t really know Damian, cause I don’t go around him from all the bad things that I hear about him, but therefore, I don’t let my children go around him and Dominic, I’ve known her all of her life. Cause I use to hold her on my hip when she was six months old baby.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/narleneh_statement.html

You talk about Damien's "distinctive" appearance. But what was distinctive about him - that he always wore black, which is not really conducive to even being seen on the side of a dark road, let alone accurately recognised.

 

[kyleb]

From Narline Hollingsworth's statement:

HESTER: These people are known to you, Dominic and Damian?

NARLENE: Yes, I see them all the time

HESTER: How long have you known them?

NARLENE: Well, I don’t really know Damian, cause I don’t go around him from all the bad things that I hear about him, but therefore, I don’t let my children go around him and Dominic, I’ve known her all of her life. Cause I use to hold her on my hip when she was six months old baby.

Her contention is that she didn't rightly know Echols beyond what she'd heard about him from others, but all the same she said she saw him regularly, and hence was obviously in a position to pick out a Echols who agreed on the stand when asked "Admittedly you have indicated that you kind of stand out in a crowd?" Any person who stands out in a crowd stands out even more when next to only one other person on an open road. As for it being night, Narline also explained:

DABBS: Didn’t you say that you also uh, saw, had your, were you driving?

NARLENE: Uh, yeah

DABBS: And you said that you turned your bright lights on wh[en]

PAGE 5

you saw them, so that you could definitely see them?

NARLENE: So, that I could get a good look at them, to see who they were, yes I did. And I said, that’s Dominic and Damian, no don’t look like, it is and I got a good close look and said, it sure is.

Besides, it isn't just Narline Hollingsworth who you're suggesting the jury should've supposed was wrong in identifying Echols on the road near the scene of the murders and covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies in the creek would be, but also Anthony. Do you not see yourself pushing the bounds of reason on this point alone?

 

[Cappuccino]

Her contention is that she didn't rightly know Echols beyond what she'd heard about him from others, but all the same she said she saw him regularly, and hence was obviously in a position to pick out a Echols who agreed on the stand when asked "Admittedly you have indicated that you kind of stand out in a crowd?" Any person who stands out in a crowd stands out even more when next to only one other person on an open road. As for it being night, Narline also explained:

When you stand out in a crowd largely because you dress all in black, I don't think you do particularly stand out on the side of a dark road. In fact, you'd be lucky not to get run over.

Narlene was also driving past them, not standing looking at them. Which means she had a minute or so at most to look at them. She gives quite a detailed description of Domini in that time, what she was wearing, what she was doing with a road sign - so I would have to question how much time was left to do more than glance in the direction of her companion.

Besides, it isn't just Narline Hollingsworth who you're suggesting the jury should've supposed was wrong in identifying Echols on the road near the scene of the murders and covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies in the creek would be, but also Anthony. Do you not see yourself pushing the bounds of reason on this point alone?

You can see muddy patches on black clothes at night but you can't recognise your own neice? I think it might be you who is pushing the bounds of reason here. Narlene could be as blind as a bat or she could have eagle eyes, but in order to believe the prosecution's spin on her evidence we would have to believe she is both simultaneously, and I'm sorry but that's not reasonable.

As for Antony, he was in the back seat. If his mother said it was Damien and Domini on the service road he would have no reason to see anything other than that, although in truth he most likely didn't get a good enough look to see who they were at all. Certainly the front seat passenger, Ricky Hollingsworth, said he didn't see who the two figures were, and he was in a much better vantage point than even Narlene in the driver's seat, let alone the back seat passengers.

 

[reedus23]

When you stand out in a crowd largely because you dress all in black, I don't think you do particularly stand out on the side of a dark road. In fact, you'd be lucky not to get run over.

Narlene was also driving past them, not standing looking at them. Which means she had a minute or so at most to look at them. She gives quite a detailed description of Domini in that time, what she was wearing, what she was doing with a road sign - so I would have to question how much time was left to do more than glance in the direction of her companion.



You can see muddy patches on black clothes at night but you can't recognise your own neice? I think it might be you who is pushing the bounds of reason here. Narlene could be as blind as a bat or she could have eagle eyes, but in order to believe the prosecution's spin on her evidence we would have to believe she is both simultaneously, and I'm sorry but that's not reasonable.

As for Antony, he was in the back seat. If his mother said it was Damien and Domini on the service road he would have no reason to see anything other than that, although in truth he most likely didn't get a good enough look to see who they were at all. Certainly the front seat passenger, Ricky Hollingsworth, said he didn't see who the two figures were, and he was in a much better vantage point than even Narlene in the driver's seat, let alone the back seat passengers.

BBM - I beg to differ. It was probably a matter of seconds, and I'm not talking about 50 seconds.

 

[reedus23]

Serious question....what was Narlene's relationship to LG? I still get their family tree messed up and it's late. I can look it up tomorrow if no one has it at their fingertips. TIA

 

[Cappuccino]

Narlene was LG's aunt.

 

[kyleb]

And Narlene is also Teer's aunt, who explained her relationship with Teer in her statement by saying:

I’ve known her all of her life. Cause I use to hold her on my hip when she was six months old baby.

That familial bond didn't prevent Narlene from doing the right thing by reporting what she'd witnessed though, despite the fact that in doing so she was providing evidence which could've implicated her own niece in the murders. Of course Teer being near the scene of the murders and covered in mud like someone who'd just hidden the bodies would be doesn't come anywhere close to proving she was involved in the murders in itself, but takes a lot of supposition to construct a scenario where Narlene could be reasonably certain that other evidence wouldn't latter be uncovered which together with her witness report would prove as much, as it was with Echols. And much the same goes for the Anthony.

As for Echols, people stand out in crowds because they they look notably different than the rest of the crowd, regardless of the particulars of why they look so different, and such people also stand out when one slows down and turns on their brights so as to "get a good look at them, to see who they were" as Narlene explained. Furthermore, someone who stands out because they dress in all black and have long black hair with pale skin sticks out all the same under bright light, and mud stands out quite well on black clothes when put under such light.

And finally, Ricky Hollingsworth didn't testify at trial, but since you insist on reaching outside the bounds of this discussion for an excuse to imagine Anthony perjured himself on the stand: Ricky said he only looked at the two while they weren't facing him and hence couldn't possessively identify them, while Anthony and Tabitha said they did. But it seems you'd presume they both perjured themselves on the stand, Anthony in the Baldwin/Echols trial and Tabitha in the Misskelley trial, eh?

 

[Cappuccino]

But it seems you'd presume they both perjured themselves on the stand, Anthony in the Baldwin/Echols trial and Tabitha in the Misskelley trial, eh?

So you do actually believe that Domini Teer was on the service road that night with Damien then?

Or do you expect me to believe that they must be right about seeing Damien because they both testified to it, but they are wrong about seeing Domini even though both of them testified to it?

I've already said what I think - they saw Domini and simply assumed the man with her was whoever her regular bf was at the time without really seeing who it was clearly. Such things are sadly all too common, and one of the many reasons why eyewitness identification is one of the least reliable forms of evidence - flawed eyewitness testimony is present in something like 75% of false convictions, according to the Innocence Project.

 

[reedus23]

So you do actually believe that Domini Teer was on the service road that night with Damien then?

Or do you expect me to believe that they must be right about seeing Damien because they both testified to it, but they are wrong about seeing Domini even though both of them testified to it?

I've already said what I think - they saw Domini and simply assumed the man with her was whoever her regular bf was at the time without really seeing who it was clearly. Such things are sadly all too common, and one of the many reasons why eyewitness identification is one of the least reliable forms of evidence - flawed eyewitness testimony is present in something like 75% of false convictions, according to the Innocence Project.

It is kind of ironic how on the one hand the prosecution put the Hollingsworth's on the stand, asking the jury to believe their story, but yet at the same time had to impeach their credibility and ask the jury not to believe their story. That's a very precarious position for an attorney and frankly I thought the defense attorneys didn't hit that strong enough in closing. I would have been jumping up and down about how the prosecution would have you not believe their own witnesses.

 

[kyleb]

So you do actually believe that Domini Teer was on the service road that night with Damien then?

Either that, or Folgeman was correct in suspecting the Hollingsworths attention was focused on Echols and in doing so they honestly mistook the effeminate, slender person, with long blondish brown hair, black clothes and holes in the knees of their jeans for his girlfriend and their cousin/niece. Both those possibilities seem reasonably plausible. On the other hand, given Ehcols' distinctive appearance it seems rather unlikely that they saw Teer with someone who could be mistaken for Echols, or two people that just happened to look like Echols and Teer but were neither.

I would have been jumping up and down about how the prosecution would have you not believe their own witnesses.

Jumping up and down would just make you look desperate, particularly doing so in denial of the fact that people make honest mistakes.

 

[reedus23]

Either that, or Folgeman was correct in suspecting the Hollingsworths attention was focused on Echols and in doing so they honestly mistook the effeminate, slender person, with long blondish brown hair, black clothes and holes in the knees of their jeans for his girlfriend and their cousin/niece. Both those possibilities seem reasonably plausible. On the other hand, given Ehcols' distinctive appearance it seems rather unlikely that they saw Teer with someone who could be mistaken for Echols, or two people that just happened to look like Echols and Teer but were neither.


Jumping up and down would just make you look desperate, particularly doing so in denial of the fact that people make honest mistakes.

Figure of speech kyle, figure of speech. But yes, I would have absolutely hammered it home (another figure of speech) to the jury that the prosecution was putting on witnesses and then saying "Now, don't believe them." That is a huge door the prosecution opened and in my opinion the defense attorneys did not take full advantage of it.

 

[kyleb]

I doubt the jury would've been swayed by such a flagrant mischaracterization of what Fogleman suggested, no matter how much you tried to hammer it home. Regardless, I'm well aware figures of speech you're using them, that is how I'm using them in response you doing so. That said, do you not comprehend the difference between melodrama and substance, or do you just figure that figuratively jumping up and down is a valid substitute for a substantive argument?

 

[reedus23]

I doubt the jury would've been swayed by such a flagrant mischaracterization of what Fogleman suggested, no matter how much you tried to hammer it home.

I wouldn't have to sway a jury. I would have to sway a juror and if I can get just one to stick to their convictions, that's all I have to do. And obviously, that wouldn't have been the only argument made, but I will continue to believe the defense attorneys missed an opportunity to really lay into the prosecution. Where you have to be careful is not to be attacking the witness in this instance because they just testified to what they believe they saw and frankly were pretty consistent about that. However, the prosecution was fair game for putting on a witness and then telling the jury "Oh, by the way, what the witness just said, disregard it. They don't know what they're talking about."

 

[kyleb]

Foglemen didn't suggest "what the witness just said, disregard it", you just made that up, wrapped it in quotes, and falsely attributed it to him. What Fogleman actually suggested is that the Hollingsworths' identification of Teer should be regarded with respect to the similarity between her appearance and Baldwin's, asking jurors to compare pictures of the two, much as I've done here:

That similarity in appearance taken in consideration with the other evidence against Baldwin demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the Hollingsworths might've honestly mistaken Baldwin for Teer. Such discussion is largely off topic here though, as this thread is about the evidence presented against Echols at trial. In that regard, when Davidson pressed Narlene about her not being able to say what shoes Echols had on if any, she offered "I mostly looked at his face". That doesn't give much room do doubt the Hollingwrorths' identification of Echols a few hundred yards from the murder scene and covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies would be, particularly not when taken in consideration with the rest of the evidence against Echols presented at trial, let alone that which wasn't.

 

[reedus23]

Foglemen didn't suggest "what the witness just said, disregard it", you just made that up, wrapped it in quotes, and falsely attributed it to him. What Fogleman actually suggested is that the Hollingsworths' identification of Teer should be regarded with respect to the similarity between her appearance and Baldwin's, asking jurors to compare pictures of the two, much as I've done here:

That similarity in appearance taken in consideration with the other evidence against Baldwin demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the Hollingsworths might've honestly mistaken Baldwin for Teer. Such discussion is largely off topic here though, as this thread is about the evidence presented against Echols at trial. In that regard, when Davidson pressed Narlene about her not being able to say what shoes Echols had on if any, she offered "I mostly looked at his face". That doesn't give much room do doubt the Hollingwrorths' identification of Echols a few hundred yards from the murder scene and covered in mud as someone who'd just hidden the bodies would be, particularly not when taken in consideration with the rest of the evidence against Echols presented at trial, let alone that which wasn't.

Obviously Fogleman didn't say those exact words. That would be dumb. He had to be much more deceptive than that, to use your word from another thread. Do you think it was proper for him to be deceptive? Shouldn't he have been straight forward and actually said the words I suggested? Personally I don't. I think it was the defense attorney's job to stress to the jury that that is, in fact, what Fogleman was saying without saying it.

We will have to agree to disagree on if the Hollingsworth's confused a girl for a boy. Personally, I'd know my cousin from some boy on the street.

 

[Cappuccino]

This is absolutely relevant to the thread topic. The Hollingsworths' sighting is part of the evidence offered against Damien, so the fact that it holds so little credibility that the prosecutor has to cherry pick, and furthermore cherry pick in a way that defies common sense, is very pertinent to the subject at hand.

The supposed similarity between Domini and Jason is not that great, especially not to Domini's own family members, (who also knew Jason by sight, btw). Furthermore they got a good enough look at her to see her lift up a yellow marker by the side of the road and point it at the car, and to describe her jeans. I don't think they mistook her for a boy. Far more likely they recognised her, and simply assumed that the man with her was Damien, who they didn't know that well and basically just knew as Domini's boyfriend. You also have to wonder why Jason would have picked up a yellow marker and pointed it at the Hollingsworths' car? Did he even know what kind of car they drove?

And, of course, there is Ricky Hollingsworth, who was in the best position to see anyone standing where these two figures were supposed to be, and despite that, couldn't recognise anything other than two figures with long hair and black clothes. Contrary to the assertion made by KyleB on the previous page, there is nothing in Ricky Hollingsworths' statement which suggests he only saw them from the back.

 

[kyleb]

Obviously Fogleman didn't say those exact words.

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?

he Hollingsworths' sighting is part of the evidence offered against Damien, so the fact that it holds so little credibility that the prosecutor has to cherry pick

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 also have to wonder why Jason would have picked up a yellow marker and pointed it at the Hollingsworths' car? Did he even know what kind of car they drove?

No, I don't have to wonder anything of the sort, particularly as I'm not even sold on the idea that it was Baldwin rather than Teer. That said, I can't help but wonder how you can insist the Hollingsworths "knew Jason by sight" and just a little bit further into the post doubt that Baldwin would be able to recognize their car. I mean of course such a thing is possible, but it seems rather unlikely given their interconnected relationships along with the fact that they lived in the same small town.

And, of course, there is Ricky Hollingsworth, who was in the best position to see anyone standing where these two figures were supposed to be, and despite that, couldn't recognise anything other than two figures with long hair and black clothes.

Rick said "I didn't look close enough to see who they were", which does nothing to suggest he couldn't have done so if he'd cared to, let alone that the other three Hollingsworths couldn't have done what they testified to doing throughout the two trials. That said, I thank you for pointing out my mistake regarding Rick's statement, and I apologize for my sloppiness in assuming I recalled it correctly rather than referring back to what it actually says.

 

[Cappuccino]

Fogleman wasn't cherry picking

Yes he was. He blatantly cherry picked his own witnesses' evidence to suit the case against the defendants, instead of building a case around what the witnesses actually said. There is no particular similarity between Baldwin and Teer, and given how well the Hollingsworths knew Teer, his contention that they mistook him for her makes no sense.

I can't help but wonder how you can insist the Hollingsworths "knew Jason by sight" and just a little bit further into the post doubt that Baldwin would be able to recognize their car.

They knew him by sight, according to their statements to the WMPD. I see no record of Jason saying the knowledge was mutual. Even if it was, that doesn't mean he knew what car Narlene drove at the time.

 

[reedus23]

This is absolutely relevant to the thread topic. The Hollingsworths' sighting is part of the evidence offered against Damien, so the fact that it holds so little credibility that the prosecutor has to cherry pick, and furthermore cherry pick in a way that defies common sense, is very pertinent to the subject at hand.

The supposed similarity between Domini and Jason is not that great, especially not to Domini's own family members, (who also knew Jason by sight, btw). Furthermore they got a good enough look at her to see her lift up a yellow marker by the side of the road and point it at the car, and to describe her jeans. I don't think they mistook her for a boy. Far more likely they recognised her, and simply assumed that the man with her was Damien, who they didn't know that well and basically just knew as Domini's boyfriend. You also have to wonder why Jason would have picked up a yellow marker and pointed it at the Hollingsworths' car? Did he even know what kind of car they drove?

And, of course, there is Ricky Hollingsworth, who was in the best position to see anyone standing where these two figures were supposed to be, and despite that, couldn't recognise anything other than two figures with long hair and black clothes. Contrary to the assertion made by KyleB on the previous page, there is nothing in Ricky Hollingsworths' statement which suggests he only saw them from the back.

You know, kyle does have me thinking though. While it seems to roll off other people's tongues a lot easier, I will start by saying I don't mean to speak ill, but at the time, I think I would say Damien was a bit effeminate as well. Since most agree that Domini's family would not mistake her because, well because they are family, is there a chance that instead, they mistook Damien for one of Domini's girlfriends? I would love to see pictures of Domini's female friends from the time period. I think this argument probably has more merit than suggesting they confused Domini, a family member, for Jason. So it was Domini and a female friend? What say you?