Devils Knot Mysterious Analysis - Case Study Example

Aimed at the conviction of the accused even in the absence of compelling physical evidence, the trial of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin was reminiscent of the witch trials that once dominated American life. The ‘key’ evidences and testimonies were insufficient, and the case itself too weak to convict the defendants of capital murder as well as bestow on them death penalty and capital punishment. With the jury caught in a public hysteria and fear of the Satanic cult, and failing to grasp the concept of logic and scientific inquiry, the jury, amidst the deficiency of the evidence, reached a specious verdict. The deficiency of the evidence was apparent, when a member of the prosecution team, Fogleman, on his summation, asserted the credibility of the witnesses especially that of Narlene Hollingsworth, who testified that she saw Damien at the night of the murder on the service road of the Blue Beacon Truck Wash. Fogleman, then set the time of the murder at 9:30 to 10:00pm of May 5th. Although Narlene stated that Damien was with his girlfriend Domini and not Jason Baldwin, Fogleman stood by his contention, citing the two girls at the football field who overheard Damien speak of the boys’ murder. The two girls, according to Fogleman, had no motivations other than to ‘tell the truth.’ It didn’t matter to him that the account of the witnesses, that of Hollingsworth and that of the girls in the ball field were inconsistent with other witnesses’ testimonies. It was also insignificant for him if the girls just ‘overheard’ Damien’s talk about the murder. For Fogleman, those constituted ‘confession’ and hard evidence. He then asked the jury to come up with their own conclusions with regards the contradictory statements and pointed out that the murders were done by ‘meticulous’ killers, ones who exhibited expertise and ability to conceal evidences and purge the crime scene of the aforesaid proofs. These contentions were then substantiated by the knife found in the lake not far from Jason Baldwin’s house and the fiber found at the scene of the crime. The prosecution also pointed to the poem written by Echols as sufficient evidence of his state of mind and beliefs which formed his motivations for the murder. Though these were all circumstantial evidences, Fogleman used the analogy of a house whose parts do not make up the whole. As the door or any of the house’s tiny parts do not constitute a whole, each item that makes up circumstantial evidence should not be viewed individually. By ‘looking at it together,’ Fogleman asserted that one would be able to see ‘the inside of Echols – his soul’ which according to him was ‘scary’. This, for Fogleman, was an apparent motive for Echols, whose belief in Satanism gave him justifications to carry out his motivations for murder. Citing Echols’ poem which manifested the teenager’s internal conflict and seemingly troubled state of mind, Fogleman asserted that Damien did not want to be good as depicted by the boy’s favoring of ‘the middle’ morals in his poem. Fogleman interpreted this as taking the side of the bad, arguing that Echols ‘doesn’t want to do good’ and this caused his desire to kill. Fogleman, then, moved on to present two knives – one taken near the crime scene and one owned by Mark Byers, Christopher Byers’ stepfather. Amid the protestations of the defense, Fogleman presented a grapefruit and cut it, first, using the knife found near the lake and second, using the knife owned by Byers. He went on to show the jurors the patterns made by the knife on the fruit, pointing out that the marks on the fruit made by the knife found on the lake matched the mark pattern on the wounds on the groin of Christopher Byers. What Fogleman neglected to establish here, was the ownership of the knife as DNA evidence gleaned from it matched Christopher Byers and surprisingly enough, the boy’s stepfather. With these evidence, apart from the prosecution’s attempt to introduce an after-acquired evidence - a pendant with traces of Baldwin’s, Echols’ so as eleven percent of the population’s DNA, the prosecution asked for conviction and impose capital punishments on the defendants. The arguments were summed up on Prosecutor Davis’ contentions that the ‘key’ to the case ‘is not who killed the boys’ but in fact, what type or kind of person ‘was involved in the murders’. As Damien did not exhibit any emotion and exposed to a dangerous set of beliefs, these became his motivations to carry out the murders. Davis, then, made an assumption, in front of the jury that the absence of blood on the crime scene was due to the fact that the children were laid to the ground on a big coat, a piece of plastic or Visqueen. These contentions do not illustrate rationality as the time of the murder was set in the middle of the night. What is questionable here is the ability of the murderers to make the crime scene free of any drop of blood considering that they had killed three boys and used only a piece of plastic or Visqueen to lay the supposedly bleeding boys on - all these were done in the middle of the darkness. The prosecutor asserted that the murders were work of experts, of meticulous individuals who were capable of concealing and purging evidences. They had forgotten that the defendants were never accused, arrested nor convicted of any previous murders. Echols and Baldwin were not mentioned to have been involved in an act of violence which included cutting, castrating or wounding anyone. The description of the prosecutors of an ‘expert’ ‘meticulous’ murderer does not match the ‘experiences’ of the accused. It should be remembered that Echols was depicted as a troubled teenager, manic-depressive and emotionally and mentally disturbed. This state of mind should have been manifested in the murders. The prosecutors labeling the act of murder as done by an expert should strike the jury as an odd contention. Furthermore, basing solely on state of mind of a person, making his thoughts his real actions, does not also constitute a behavior that is dangerous and violent. If that is the case, then every individual who is capable of violent thoughts should be put to trial every time a random murder occurs. Also apparent here is the absence of hard and physical evidence that really associates the defendants to the murders. The case therefore, manifests its limitations on convicting the accused in that the authorities failed to utilize an acceptable and lawful evidentiary standard. The evidences were not acquired in a timely manner – neither was the collection done scientifically and properly nor proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendants. Much of the evidence and the argument are irrelevant to the case. Moreover, it can be observed that the jurors passed their judgments hastily. Although this is not questionable when physical evidence are direct and relevant to the case, the swift passing of judgment in a weak case where circumstantial evidence and the personality of the individuals took the center stage of a murder trial is dubious. The process the jurors used to decide the penalties was too simplistic. On a large easel pad which the juror divided into ‘pro’ and ‘con’ columns, the jurors were able to arrive to conclusion with regards the murder. Written under the headings were mainly the behavior, characteristics and the psychological make up of persons involved in the case. Surprisingly manifested here, was the jurors acceptance of the patterns of behavior of an individual and how these could make a person the murderer. One of the juror wrote on the pad, in big bold letters, ‘you are what you think about’ referring to Damien Echols’ thought patterns and beliefs. This was one of the main bases of the jurors’ sentencing of Echols to death. The mitigating factors, according to them, such as Echols’ troubled state of mind, were outweighed by the cruelty of the crime. The jury arrived with the verdict mainly because they shared the hysteria, fear and sentiments of the experts, residents and authorities with regards the evil of Damien Echols’ belief system. The ‘Satanic panic’ as termed by the local newspapers had likewise taken a grip on the jury when they were supposed to utilize rationality in judgment. The jury’s simplicity in their process of reaching the verdict is also a demonstration of their simplemindedness. The prosecutors’ use of analogy of a house for instance, would cause a probing mind to question its relevance and logic or its connection to the lack of direct and incriminating evidence. Although the analogy is a classic example of a fallacy, the jurors were not able to see the flaws in it. Notable also, especially on the notes the jury scribbled on the easel pad, was their failure to use scientific inquiry and logical system before they made their decisions. Hence, emotionality won over logic in this case. It is significant, however, in a case such as this that emotionality does not prevail over rationality. The judgment of a person based on his patterns of thoughts and belief systems alone, although necessary in psychographic evaluation and information, should not be given much space in the courtrooms. The weakness of this case sprang forth from its emphasis on behavior so as on ‘what kind of person could have done the murder’. The fallacy of the prosecutors’ arguments lay on the phrase ‘what type’ because it immediately brings to mind the ‘type’ of behavior Echols manifest. The question ‘why’ - referring to the motivations of the murderer - was suddenly linked to Echols’ ‘motivations’ although these motivations were not evident and acted upon in reality. What has been forgotten are the questions ‘who’ and ‘how’. The question ‘how’ is always arduous to answer since it requires not just empirical evidence but taxing scientific data. The use of these questions in an inquiry illustrates a scientific approach to problem solving. Although some of these questions were asked in the trial, these did not encompass all questions that need to be answered in an acceptable scientific inquiry where the objective is to reach a rational, scientific and just verdict. This only illustrates that when the logical and scientific approach are deserted, injustice occurs. Read More