For Miranda: Damien and the Great Dane

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Mary7875]

DAVIS: Ok what about you? Were you, did you drink to the point you were intoxicated?

MISSKELLEY: I drunk to a point I was sick.
DAVIS: Ok. And when you drank, drink anything with the Whiskey?

MISSKELLEY: No.

DAVIS: Ok. What brand was it?

DAVIS: Evan Williams.

Alex, you can read the entire thing here, that is if your not too busy:  http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...................I am wondering if that E.W. had anything to do with his recollecting of events?

Could be the alcohol, could be the joints they smoked.  Could be a combination of the two.

It's falling on deaf ears, TJ.  Several supporters have already decided that a teenager would never drink whiskey straight from the bottle.

It tastes too yucky 

[Mary7875]

Not to mention nasturtiums!

Miranda

Damn Miranda!

I get so tired of scratching my head because of some of the crap in your posts!  You won't get me this time!    See what I mean.........I don't have the time, nor the effort to sort through it.  I googled your ass this time ! 

What the hell does 'nasturtiums'  have to do with........anything?

Nasturtium (literally "nose-twister" or "nose-tweaker")

Nose-twister or nose-tweaker.

Well, there you have it.  Miranda is reaching across the pond to bend your schnozz out of place   

[taylorjaysmommy]

I know, they won't even bother with reading it if you take the time and go to the trouble to lay it right out in front of them.  Thats really sad.  My mind has been made up on this case, looooooooong ago, however I do enjoy reading and am very interested in reading up on certain highlights of it when someone posts them. 

This thread is about Damien stomping a defenseless dog to death, no, 'scuse me, he clubbed it in the back of the head with a brick first, killing it and then stomped it's dead body and mutilated it.............but Miranda wants to discuss flowers and pink elephants with, of all people, Alex.  Geeeesh!  I give up, honestly. 

[Kimbo]

What do these people (and their specialities) all have in common?

Joe Ball (dogs & cats)
David Berkowitz (dogs)
John Travers (cows and sheep)
Rostislav Bogoslevsky (cats)
Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo (various)
Jeffrey Dahmer (dogs)
Albert DeSalvo (cats)
Carroll Cole (dogs)
Arthur Shawcross (sheep)
Damien Echols (dogs)
Christine Falling (cats)
Robert Garrow (cows, sheep)
Richard Hickock (dogs)
Perry Smith (dogs)
Ed Kemper (cats)
Dennis Rader (cats, dogs)
Peter Kurten (dogs, squirrels, sheep, goats)
George Disdale, legally Bruce Lee (pigeons)
Henry Lee Lucas (cats, dogs, calves)
Richard Chase (cats, dogs, rabbits)

They all started their multiple murdering careers torturing and killing animals. Many of them were fire starters earlier on to boot.

The correlation between early animal abuse/torture to sociopathic murder is well documented. Criminal databases have been set up to track this strong precursor.

If we accept as fact that Echols had a history of this behaviour, it is a yet another piece of information that fits squarely in place.

Kimbo

Ps: Alex, if you can’t see the point despite my many attempts to explain it for you, that others obviously clearly grasped, then we’ll just let it be. It’s good to get the heads up on people. For some reason I thought you were – let’s say - different than that. I don’t mind being wrong, don’t mind me.

Pps: If you sense some condenscension there, you'd be right this time Alex.  ;)

[Miranda]

Hi Kimbo!

I think it was maybe in my post that the animal cruelty being a precursor to possible psychopathic behaviour  in later life appeared.  Not Alex's.

I totally agree that there is indeed a very high correlation between known psychopathic personalties who have proceeded to commit horrendous crimes AND an earlier history of known animal cruelty.  Statistically very highly significant.

So it is true to say that a very high proportion of psychopathic killers had exhibited animal torture in their youth.  I have no problem with this at all.

However, (you knew this was coming didn't you!?)  I am not totally convinced that all teens who exhibit animal torture of varying degrees are necessarily going to automatically go on to be active psychopathic killers - serial or singular.

Tjhe only way that this could be ascertained is if every case of animal cruelty was logged and investigated, with records kept, and then the perpetrators be tagged for life to see whether they turn into psychopathic killers later in life.  That would involve elements of a 'police state'.  Anyway if they knew they were being monitored 24/7 only the thickest or most arrogant would be likely to offend!

What will be fascinating to follow is the current work being done on 'brain mapping'.  It might well be true that the combination of narcisism, inability to empathize, sadism etcetera will be shown in brain scans when certain stimulii are used during scans.  It is equally possible that there are some walking around today who are able to exercise that self-control purely because they know the behaviour is 'unacceptable' and do not want the inevitable repercussions.  A frightening thought.

Of course this whole debate has led on from the allegations that DE tortured and killed a dog.  I am not at all convinced that this really did happen but would admit that it is possible.  If it did, it would reveal what a callous and insensitive youth he must have been back then.  I actually think he was that anyway and an angry young man to boot!  I also happen to think that he was a braggart and always posturing, frequently in the worst possible of taste.  In my book that does not make him a killer, de facto.  The whole is greater than the sum of all the parts.

Miranda


edited to add:-

Kimbo 'dogs' plural?   DE I mean?

[Miranda]

TJM

'Nasturtiums' reference was a malapropism.  Deriving from the redoubtable Mrs Malaprop in Sheridan's The Rivals.  It was inspired by a line in Sheer's post and was more directed at her, with humour.


You do seem to have overlooked my question as to whether, in your view, I am educated but stupid or my views are stupid?

The name O’Ceallachain is the Irish for Callaghan. A possible derivation is the Gaelic word ceallach meaning strife (in the sense of fight or contention for ...etc!

One's first instinct is to believe the name 'Callaghan' to be Irish as the Celtic heritage has been diluted over the years.

As the name got 'americanised' the 'g' has been dropped by many.  Just as you guys spell centre 'center', colour 'color' etcetera so too has Callaghan been changed.

Give it another 50 years at the current rate and we will all be writing in txt spk rather than in English or American English.  We will be the poorer for it but I shall not live to have to endure that.

As to the thread.  I do assure you that I read it but I did not, for reasons previously stated, respond. It might well please you to know that I found the subject line rebarbative as I hate cruelty of any kind.

I have already commented on young Bartoush's statement. It would be interesting to know what percentage of school attendance he had though!  I wish I had had that level of facility with dates at that age.

Thank you for posting the second piece too.  Who was the subject  of the interview and who wrote up the report?

Now the hard part.  I am terribly sorry.  I was actually being pretty bitchy to you on that post.  It did not occur to me for an instant that you would not be aware of my sarcasm - especially since I said I had stooped that low!

Miranda

[taylorjaysmommy]

I do apologize to you also Miranda.  I thought that I had 'copy and pasted' for you exactly where that was inserted into Callahans, I guess I neglected to do so.  Being that he too is here in Arkansas, I am sure that he will fit into the profile of '"Lad" from a "Dysfunctional background", however his name is Blaine Hodge and   Here ya' go:http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/blh.html. 
These two statements Hodge and Bartoush gave about the Great Dane have really nothing to do with DE being a posturing, braggart though, as Bartoush actually 'saw' him do it and Hodge 'heard' from another child named Adam, so it wasn't from a bragging DE that this even came from. 
I had to sit here for a few minutes and try to digest  a teen bragging about doing such a ghastly thing to a defenseless animal.  The next few lines will just be personal thoughts of mine, so skip over if desired.........
I have a teen myself.  He is 14.  I guess I am one of the 'cool' moms, as he and his buddies are always here.  I have been very active in his life, and not now, not last year, nor five years ago, not never..........have I ever, ever, ever even detected a time where he or any of his buddies were lacking in empathy for animals or bugs, or critters of the such.  I guess what I am saying is that, well thats not normal Miranda.  You do know that, don't you?  It has been a very long time since I myself have been a teen, and although I cannot recall all moments of it, I do know for certain that I have never, ever had a second in my own life where I would have been capable of carrying out such a heinous act.  I'm not going to babble on with this paragraph any longer, just wondering over here if you are failing to see how horrible it is?  I cannot help but remember you commenting about me being 'scary' because I give you the impression that I label and hate all supporters.  I assure you that I would not bash any one of you in the head, nor stomp you, and remove your intestines.  I might snarl, or curse, but I am good at keeping my hands to myself and not even having mental thoughts of such physical abuse.
You and I are just two completely different people, from different walks of life, different parts of the world.  We will never see things alike, even if we agreed on this case, we still would see everything else from different colored or coloured glasses or specs.  I am glad, as I am sure that you are too.
More rambling here, everyone else warned to skip over.  I would send Miranda a pm, however I am sure she would not read it. 
You asked me a question, I believe twice now about if I think that you are educated and stupid, views are stupid, or just plain stupid.  You seem to be very fascinated with the fact that you have given me the impression that you are educated.  I will give you that, as I do.  I will tell you that I am too.  Your education and mine are completely different, obviously.  Yours is in journalism?  Is that correct?  Mine is in healthcare.  Two completely different things.  Where you would not be very effective talking slang, with a heavy southern accent..............I wouldn't be very effective, well liked, or even understood with patients, my coworkers, my TEENAGER, or others 'round here if I talked or worded myself like you.  We are just different beasts. Period.  We both must accept that.
You seem to have started in on me long ago, because of this difference.  Like I am possibly a 'lass from a dysfunctional family', and therefore do not deserve to be counted.  I am from the U.S.  I am  from Arkansas, which I am sure is 'yuck to you.  I am not a very good journalist.  I came from an education system that you don't agree with.  My children do and my childrens children will too.  Yucky huh? 
I don't like that you have stereotyped me and everyone else around here as you have.  One of the first posts of yours that I noticed that did not set well with me, however I kept my mouth shut, was you degrading the WM police department.  You went on and on about police officers and how...........corrupt and  bad, they are.  You were on blaming them for poor D,J, and J being found guilty.   We could disagree on this forever, however I just started noticing how much of a biggot you were, stereotyping anyone that is not just like you and seemingly making them even less of a person because of this difference.  I sometimes wonder, this is terrible, but I do wonder..............the real victims of this case, do you feel that they deserved less of a life, because of their location, education, and all of the other things that seem to make you look down upon people over here? 
I am married to a police officer and it doesn't work the way that you have the impression of, I assure you.   There are bad ones, sure.  Very bad.  But for an entire police department, and legal system  to do what you suggest over a case that involves three murdered children, and the possiblility of letting the real killers remain in society, while sending three innocent teens to prison and or death..........that just doesn't happen Miranda, not even over here.  Your suggestions of that were sickening to me.  Todd even tried to tell you what a wonderful man, and person Gitchell was, that he knows him well.  They are friends.  I do not know him at all, but what kind of person/friend would participate in such corruption over the death of a child?  I do know alot of the folks here that participated in the trials...........and IMO, I know they had a job to do, but I cannot and will never be convinced that they would allow or participate in such corruption.  The accusation of that is ridiculous. 
The three that you support........they are killers, and they are liars.  They killed the children and they do not deserve to be defended, given wealth,  made martyrs or  celebrities. 
Why do you attack everything right about this case, and choose to believe only in one person?  I'm sorry, but I do not understand. 
Sorry for the rambling, but I do feel better now that I got that off of my chest.

[chitown_alex]

What do these people (and their specialities) all have in common?

Joe Ball (dogs & cats)
David Berkowitz (dogs)
John Travers (cows and sheep)
Rostislav Bogoslevsky (cats)
Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo (various)
Jeffrey Dahmer (dogs)
Albert DeSalvo (cats)
Carroll Cole (dogs)
Arthur Shawcross (sheep)
Damien Echols (dogs)
Christine Falling (cats)
Robert Garrow (cows, sheep)
Richard Hickock (dogs)
Perry Smith (dogs)
Ed Kemper (cats)
Dennis Rader (cats, dogs)
Peter Kurten (dogs, squirrels, sheep, goats)
George Disdale, legally Bruce Lee (pigeons)
Henry Lee Lucas (cats, dogs, calves)
Richard Chase (cats, dogs, rabbits)

They all started their multiple murdering careers torturing and killing animals. Many of them were fire starters earlier on to boot.

The correlation between early animal abuse/torture to sociopathic murder is well documented. Criminal databases have been set up to track this strong precursor.

If we accept as fact that Echols had a history of this behaviour, it is a yet another piece of information that fits squarely in place.

Kimbo

Ps: Alex, if you can’t see the point despite my many attempts to explain it for you, that others obviously clearly grasped, then we’ll just let it be. It’s good to get the heads up on people. For some reason I thought you were – let’s say - different than that. I don’t mind being wrong, don’t mind me.

Pps: If you sense some condenscension there, you'd be right this time Alex.  ;)

Does torturing animals always lead to murders?  Conversely, have all murderers killed animals in their youths? 

[Farm]

Does torturing animals always lead to murders?

Yeah right... Echol's psychotic disorder means nothing.

His history of violence means nothing.

The confessions mean nothing.

The fibers mean nothing.

The witnesses mean nothing.

The fabricated alibi's mean nothing.

Can you people honestly not see just how ridiculous you all look?

[chitown_alex]

Does torturing animals always lead to murders?

Yeah right... Echol's psychotic disorder means nothing.

His history of violence means nothing.

The confessions mean nothing.

The fibers mean nothing.

The witnesses mean nothing.

The fabricated alibi's mean nothing.

Can you people honestly not see just how ridiculous you all look?

1.  It can mean something, but it can also mean nothing.  That is the point.  No causal connection has been established.  And if it has, please refer to it.

2.  The history of violence goes to the character of the defendant, but it does not substantially prove anything.

3.  The confession(s), had they been factually consistent and/or correct, would have meant something.  In their present state, they are useful only for Nons who continue to claim their probative value.

4.  Fibers:  How many fibers were found?  Do they vastly outnumber the new evidence?

5.  Witnesses did mean something in this trial.  The jury bought their bullshit, despite their foolishness on cross examination.  Read the transcripts identified in the Callahan site.

6.  Fabricated alibis:  This is probably your strongest suit.  I'll give you this one.

To find all of the above numbered ideas as absolutely certain is ridiculous.

[LaCosaNostra44]

. It can mean something, but it can also mean nothing.  That is the point.  No causal connection has been established.  And if it has, please refer to it.

It's called  correlation Alex...not cause. Killing an animal does not CAUSE someone to kill a person.  However, those who kill and abuse animals are more likely than those who don't to be more violent in adulthood.

2.  The history of violence goes to the character of the defendant, but it does not substantially prove anything.

Let those who blamed Mark for all those years and now are blamng Terry know that too.

Oh...btw...Psyhotics with a history of violence are more likely to be violent than those without a psychotic disorder.

3.  The confession(s), had they been factually consistent and/or correct, would have meant something.  In their present state, they are useful only for Nons who continue to claim their probative value.

They are both factually consistent and/or correct. You chose to ignore them, because it is easier to make a blanket statement and disregard the entire  history of confessions, than it is to look at them for both internal and external consistencies.

4.  Fibers:  How many fibers were found?  Do they vastly outnumber the new evidence?

Yes....and what new evidence? Surely you don't mean the animal predation theory. Such "evidence" was already ruled on...only back then it was Turvey's "bitemark"...

The DNA is meaningless....

5.  Witnesses did mean something in this trial.  The jury bought their bullshit, despite their foolishness on cross examination.  Read the transcripts identified in the Callahan site.

JURIES, Alex, plural...that means 24 individual people...who did as juries do...They deliberated, they discarded testmony and evidence that they felt was suspect and  STILL came up with multiple verdicts of guilt.

Do you think that all these winesses just got together and said...hey...let's make up all this shit for the jury to believe.

I'll let you in on something. Witnesses for the Defense (especially Echols) did more harm to the Defendants than any Prosecution witness.


6.  Fabricated alibis:  This is probably your strongest suit.  I'll give you this one.

What are the chances!!!!!

To find all of the above numbered ideas as absolutely certain is ridiculous

No.... to dissect this case and say each piece of testimony, evidence, and statement  is irrelevant, a conspiracy, or meaningless instead of looking at the whole picture is ridiculous.

That was the point of Farm's post...get the BIG PICTURE, Alex....

A single thread does not make a sweater....but put a bunch of them together in the correct way...and you got yourself one.

[chitown_alex]

. It can mean something, but it can also mean nothing.  That is the point.  No causal connection has been established.  And if it has, please refer to it.

It's called  correlation Alex...not cause. Killing an animal does not CAUSE someone to kill a person.  However, those who kill and abuse animals are more likely than those who don't to be more violent in adulthood.

2.  The history of violence goes to the character of the defendant, but it does not substantially prove anything.

Let those who blamed Mark for all those years and now are blamng Terry know that too.

Oh...btw...Psyhotics with a history of violence are more likely to be violent than those without a psychotic disorder.

3.  The confession(s), had they been factually consistent and/or correct, would have meant something.  In their present state, they are useful only for Nons who continue to claim their probative value.

They are both factually consistent and/or correct. You chose to ignore them, because it is easier to make a blanket statement and disregard the entire  history of confessions, than it is to look at them for both internal and external consistencies.

4.  Fibers:  How many fibers were found?  Do they vastly outnumber the new evidence?

Yes....and what new evidence? Surely you don't mean the animal predation theory. Such "evidence" was already ruled on...only back then it was Turvey's "bitemark"...

The DNA is meaningless....

5.  Witnesses did mean something in this trial.  The jury bought their bullshit, despite their foolishness on cross examination.  Read the transcripts identified in the Callahan site.

JURIES, Alex, plural...that means 24 individual people...who did as juries do...They deliberated, they discarded testmony and evidence that they felt was suspect and  STILL came up with multiple verdicts of guilt.

Do you think that all these winesses just got together and said...hey...let's make up all this shit for the jury to believe.

I'll let you in on something. Witnesses for the Defense (especially Echols) did more harm to the Defendants than any Prosecution witness.


6.  Fabricated alibis:  This is probably your strongest suit.  I'll give you this one.

What are the chances!!!!!

To find all of the above numbered ideas as absolutely certain is ridiculous

No.... to dissect this case and say each piece of testimony, evidence, and statement  is irrelevant, a conspiracy, or meaningless instead of looking at the whole picture is ridiculous.

That was the point of Farm's post...get the BIG PICTURE, Alex....

A single thread does not make a sweater....but put a bunch of them together in the correct way...and you got yourself one.

In the first one, you did not rebut that no such causal connection was made between Damien's prior history and the murders.  As for the confessions, you are substantially incorrect.  Jessie's account is far from being consistent with the nature of the crime.  While there may be consistent parts, the crucial elements (time, motive, etc) are not established.  Your faith in the jury is questionable in this case because there is substantial evidence that the jurors used inadmissible evidence to make their decisions.  And this isn't even taking into consideration the juror's local socialization of the case.  I'll disregard your other rebuttals as they are condescending and just as debatable as the ones I have addressed.

For the record, this is merely an opinion.  As much as many Nons want to believe otherwise, everything about this case is up to debate, and all our observations and theories are merely ours.

[Farm]

Jessie's account is far from being consistent with the nature of the crime.

HAHAHAH!!!

Ok, Ofshe.

I can only assume you read the statement as "carefully" as he did.

While there may be consistent parts, the crucial elements (time, motive, etc) are not established.

So you're a pathological liar too?

Your faith in the jury is questionable in this case because there is substantial evidence that the jurors used inadmissible evidence to make their decisions.

Your pathetic desire for Echol's release regardless of his guilt is telling indeed.

For the record, this is merely an opinion.

From a clueless blathering idiot.

[LaCosaNostra44]

In the first one, you did not rebut that no such causal connection was made between Damien's prior history and the murders.

No one has said it is causal except supporters. More likely....as in this guy who kills dogs and has a history of psychosis is more likely to commit the murders than a married father of two who has not killed animals and has no history of psychosis...

As for the confessions, you are substantially incorrect.  Jessie's account is far from being consistent with the nature of the crime.

No.....

He tells how the murders occurred. The boys were beaten.

He tells how the events unfolded. They were called into the woods.

He tells what weapons were used. Large branches, fists and knives.

He tells of the location of the boys once they were in the woods. The location of the bodies in the creek verifies that.

He tells of events that are consistent with wounds and injuries. The scratches behind the ears consistent with the victim being held by the ears. The binding abrasions being consistent with when the boys were tied up, both ante and post mortem.



While there may be consistent parts, the crucial elements (time, motive, etc) are not established.  

Yep...supporters focus on the time and therefore all else is irrelvevant.

As far as motive...there was no motive....except what was in Damien's and Jason's heads at the time.

Your faith in the jury is questionable in this case because there is substantial evidence that the jurors used inadmissible evidence to make their decisions.

Like?

And this isn't even taking into consideration the juror's local socialization of the case.  


The trials were moved from West Memphis. What do you mean by local socialization? Are you implying than Arkansans can't deliberate fairly?

I'll disregard your other rebuttals as they are condescending and just as debatable as the ones I have addressed.

I'll take that and translate it to..."you make good points and I can't argue them".

For the record, this is merely an opinion.  As much as many Nons want to believe otherwise, everything about this case is up to debate, and all our observations and theories are merely ours.

No.  It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of being able to synthesize known documentation and evidence and come to a conclusion.

The only reason this case is debatable is based on propaganda, conspiracy theories and half truths from supporters.

[Kimbo]

However, (you knew this was coming didn't you!?)  I am not totally convinced that all teens who exhibit animal torture of varying degrees are necessarily going to automatically go on to be active psychopathic killers - serial or singular.

Hello. Neither am I Miranda, convinced, if you think that was what I was projecting. All I am saying is there is a strong correlation between kids that get off on torturing animals and adults that end up murdering. it's not an absolute, but it is a strong indication.

Our friend Alex seems to miss this point as well. No one claimed that all kids that torture animals grow up to kill. However, there is a documented connection between early animal abuse and later adult murder.  It is ignorant to ignore this precursor.

Alex, I am still waiting for your House reasoning from a month or so ago. It’s no wonder you try our collective patience. En pointe to this thread, Alex, tell me how murdering a dog is normal behaviour.

Did you, ever in your life, stomp a dog to death? Did you ever get joy out of seeing an animal in pain? No? Guess what, not me either, and not most of us.

The Great Dane evidence is signicant. Echols was an animal sadist, as documented.

The propaganda machine likes to shine it up, but any one that is true to the facts knows this for what it is.

Spin things as you will Alex. It is clear you are not prepared to consider the facts in preference of a possible fan club base. Go to it if that's what you came for,

In the meantime, if you want to ask stupid, don't bother with me. I was quite clear with my post and my wording, unlike you. If you make statements of fact - please back them up. If you are asked questions, please answer for everyone's benefit.

As fabulous as you see your people skills, I don't share that buzz with your personality. Put up or shut up, Alex. If you are not able to discuss the facts of the case, one can only assume you are trolling. Please read up on, well most everything, before you start up again.

Kimbo