Timeline of Events

[UdbCrzy2]

Well you could find out why Echols is one of my three targets by reading the trial transcripts and familiarizing yourself with the body of evidence in this case. I suspect you'd rather not know such things though, eh?


Have you ever bothered too look at where Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley lived in relation Robin Hood Hills on a map? Ignoring such simple matters of fact and focusing attention away from those three all these years by conducting witch hunts on one parent of the victims after another is ridiculous.

Many supporters would rather just watch movies and base their opinion on biased media. There are others who are actually interested in the facts and go to callahans to research those documents and claims.

What they are accusing the parents of the victims for is outrageous and in my state it's illegal because those parents are considered victims. If you don't believe that then google your state's 'victim's rights laws'.

 

[primitivefuture]

Many supporters would rather just watch movies and base their opinion on biased media. There are others who are actually interested in the facts and go to callahans to research those documents and claims.

What they are accusing the parents of the victims for is outrageous and in my state it's illegal because those parents are considered victims. If you don't believe that then google your state's 'victim's rights laws'.

Does the moral outrage extend to parents of the victims who are accusing another parent of the one of the victims? Personally, I can't say for certain who killed the boys. However, the fact that more than one of their parents has openly accused Terry Hobbs certainly gives me pause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

If you don't believe that then google your state's 'victim's rights laws'.

I've found this overview on the matter, but I'm not seeing anything in it to suggest this witch hunts against the parents are illegal, though that doesn't make the situation any less revolting.

 

[Ausgirl]

When a child is murdered, and a parent of that child has a known history of violence -- particularly toward the child -- I actually don't see much wrong with either investigation of possible parental involvement, nor in speculation to that effect.

Especially when said parents are investigated as suspects by police.

I don't see that as shameful behaviour, at all.

 

[kyleb]

Nothing shameful hypothetical situation you described, but it's shameful misrepresentation of what's actually been going on in this case.

 

[Ausgirl]

but it's shameful misrepresentation of what's actually been going on in this case.

I must disagree. In this case, we have a conclusive incident where one of the victims was hit by a parent - with a belt - very shortly prior to the murders. We have parents with criminal backgrounds, engaging in drug use, etc. We have victims with yellow bruises, possibly indicating older injuries than the less-than-24-hr period between victims going missing and discovery. We have a victim with possible ongoing genital bacterial infection, or at the least notable irritation, indicating potential neglect and/or abuse.

I think that, just looking at these things (that I can mention just off the top of my head, I am sure there's more to consider), it's neither a stretch nor a shame to consider the -possibility- of parent involvement.

 

[kyleb]

Is it that you've not noticed anything along the lines of this scene from Paradise Lost 2, where Kathy Bakken swoons over Echols as he scapegoats Mark Byers:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkb2gf1Vl5c#t=4565s"]HBO ParadiseLost Pt2 Revelations - YouTube[/ame]

Bakken: What do you think of Byers?

Echols: I think Byers is the fakest creature who ever walked on two legs. I don't think there is a true thing about him. He puts on all these false faces, he'll act one way whenever they have cameras on him and another way when he's by himself, and he has about thirty different faces.

Bakken: So seeing him in the movie didn't change how, any. your opinions about him?

Well I think it reinforced the opinions I have about him. I still believe with all my heart that he is the person who killed those three children, and I have no sympathy for Byers. I'm sitting here on death row for a crime he committed. That alone is enough for me to have no sympathy for him, but also the fact that he killed three little kids.

Bakken: Do you think Mellisa had anything to do with it?

Echols: I don't think she actually participated in the act of killing them, but I think she participated in covering it up. I firmly believe she knew, and that's why she's dead now.

Bakken: If you could say, if you could give Byers a message what would it be?

Echols: I wouldn't say anything to Mark Byers. Mark Byers in beneath me. He doesn't even deserve my contempt.

Or do you actually not see anything shameful in such behavior?

 

[Ausgirl]

I am speaking generally, in reply to a comment in which I took there to a be a general disapproval of opinions in which it's expressed that a parent may have been involved.

 

[kyleb]

But do you actually see nothing shameful in such behavior as Echols demonstrated in his attempts to scapegoat Mark Byers, our is it that your just unwilling to say as much?

 

[primitivefuture]

Mark Beyers: "I watched it (Paradise Lost 2) and I was sickened by my behavior. I was sickened by my actions."

They both said horrible things about each other. At one time, they both blamed each other for the murders.they have since hugged and made up. It seems like JMB has let it go. Why can't you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

I've found Mark Byers' behavior revolting from PL2, but it does nothing to excuse anyone's attempts to scapegoat him for the murders, Echols or otherwise.

 

[gheckso]

TBH I wouldn't give a hoot about others feelings if I was the one locked up and sentenced to death for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be suspicious of everyone.

 

[Ausgirl]

I would not consider anyone's attempts to examine Mark Byers as a potential suspect shameful, for reasons I have already and clearly given above.

Do I think Echols ought to shut his face, on this and many other topics? Sure. But perhaps (and I DO mean 'perhaps') he is an innocent man, trying to find the truth as suggested above. That, or a mouthy idiot. Maybe both.

But I cannot consider the act of discussing the possible involvement of ANY parent with a criminally violent background, a history of drug use and a self-acknowledged incidence of violence with an object immediately prior to the crime - in ANY child murder case - to be inappropriate.

 

[kyleb]

TBH I wouldn't give a hoot about others feelings if I was the one locked up and sentenced to death for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be suspicious of everyone.

And what if you were sentenced to death for murders you did commit, would you look to scapegoat parents of the victims?

I would not consider anyone's attempts to examine Mark Byers as a potential suspect shameful, for reasons I have already and clearly given above.

I"m asking about decade and a half long effort to brand Byers as having murdered his son and the two other boys which were done with farcical misinterpretations of evidence and with no regard for the fact that Byers was investigated and had a well established alibi before the three were convicted of the murders were even arrested. Are you unwilling to call that shameful?

 

[gheckso]

And what if you were sentenced to death for murders you did commit, would you look to scapegoat parents of the victims?

I don't see how it's relevant but anyway, If it were me and I did commit this crime, I wouldn't be blaming anyone, I would accept the decision, and almost wish it. I couldn't live with the enormous amount of mental torment for killing 3 young children.

That's not saying someone with a certain mentality couldn't do as you suggest, but three... Jason for one jumps out at me to be very genuine and is showing his empathetic nature by helping others, to me he doesn't fit the description. JMO

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Even Gary "It's an Eleven" Gitchell said in the Pasdar deposition that the family members of the victims should be the first to be questioned and (hopefully) ruled out. Todd Moore's alibi is solid. JMB was investigated and cleared. IIRC, even Ricky Lee Murray and Steven Branch were questioned and cleared. However, LE still maintains that TWH is not now and never has been a suspect. I find that revolting.

 

[gheckso]

Gary "It's an Eleven" Gitchell

:floorlaugh:

 

[Ausgirl]

I"m asking about decade and a half long effort to brand Byers as having murdered his son and the two other boys which were done with farcical misinterpretations of evidence and with no regard for the fact that Byers was investigated and had a well established alibi before the three were convicted of the murders were even arrested. Are you unwilling to call that shameful?

I'd actually have to have a much longer look into both the evidence and the accusations to be able to make a solid conclusion, there. And frankly, I have a long list of much more interesting things to do, before I'd want to do that.

The rest of my opinion on the matter will stand, regarding the validity of discussing potential familial/parental involvement. In general, I see nothing much wrong with it, when the person has been considered a viable suspect by LE at any point - subsequently cleared or not (as a good number of killers have been suspected and 'cleared' in the past, when they were indeed guilty and thus the process of clearing a suspect is not at all infallible).

 

[kyleb]

That's not saying someone with a certain mentality couldn't do as you suggest, but three...

Not three, as I've never seen Misskelley join in on the scapegoating of the parents, and of course he is the same one with six confessions on record to various individuals including his own lawyers, and the one who was reported as having frequent crying fits between the time of the murders and his arrest.

Jason for one jumps out at me to be very genuine and is showing his empathetic nature by helping others, to me he doesn't fit the description.

Baldwin is quite a different person than the smirking little punk who joined in on the efforts to scapegoat Byers back in PL2, and I get the impression that he actually managed to reform himself in prison to a large extent, just not quite enough own up to what he did, which leaves him to keep lying about the facts of the case such as can be seen here:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub5gMNB_ca0"]Jason Baldwin and Mara Leveritt distorting the record - YouTube[/ame]

 

[reedus23]

Many supporters would rather just watch movies and base their opinion on biased media. There are others who are actually interested in the facts and go to callahans to research those documents and claims.

What they are accusing the parents of the victims for is outrageous and in my state it's illegal because those parents are considered victims. If you don't believe that then google your state's 'victim's rights laws'.

I suppose I don't fall into your category of "supporters" because I don't support the WM3. In fact, I only started reading up on this case about a year ago and they were already released so there's really never been a reason for me to take up their cause. What I do "support" is finding justice for Chris, Michael and Stevie. The way this "supporter" started was by reading all of the investigative reports. After those, I read all of the trial testimony. I avoided the documentaries, I avoided reading media and I avoided spin sites for those exact reasons. So I wouldn't be influenced by their opinions. Having approached it in that manner, it was clear to me that justice was not served in this case. I had no dog in this fight so I had no reason to reach one opinion over the other. So it is very possible to do exactly what you say should be done and come to the opposite conclusion you have reached.

As for victims' rights, I have never heard of that and couldn't find it myself, outside of normal libel/slander/defamation laws. I would be surprised to hear that free speech could be restricted to the point that it prevents the expression of one's opinion. Further, I don't know if anyone has asserted that any parent is guilty of anything but has given legitimate opinions on why they think they should be investigated. What is interesting is that what I did find in googling it is that a victims' property shall be released to the victim once no longer needed to be retained for appeals. Makes me wonder why the State refuses to do so in this case.