Post by Pontotocmom on Oct 9, 2006 19:51:43 GMT -6
The state maintains that state Crime Lab officials did not consider the wound a human bite mark and, therefore, the swab tests were unwarranted.
Therefore, in my opinion if they may or may not be a true bite mark from a human.
confession sufficient to sustain conviction if accompanied by other proof that offense was committed by someone. -- Where two witnesses testified that they overheard appellant Echols state that he killed the three boys, this was direct evidence; a confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is accompanied by other proof that the offense was committed by someone.
Evidence -- substantial evidence of appellant Echols's guilt. -- There was substantial evidence of the guilt of appellant Echols where, among other things, the testimony of witnesses placed him in dirty clothes near the crime scene at a time close to the murders; where two independent witnesses reported Echols's statement that he had killed the three boys and was direct evidence of the statement; where a criminalist from the State Crime Laboratory and a State Medical Examiner testified concerning the similarity of fibers found on the victim's clothes with clothing found in Echols's home and the serrated wound patterns on the three victims that were consistent with, and could have been caused by, a knife found in a lake behind appellant Baldwin's parents' residence; where, given the testimony of a witness that she had seen Echols carrying a similar knife and the testimony of the owner of a knife collector service regarding that type of knife, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Echols or Baldwin disposed of the knife in the lake; where Echols admitted on cross-examination that he had delved deeply into the occult and was familiar with its practices and where various items that had been found in his room supported the State's theory of motive that the killings were done in a satanic ritual; where an expert in occult killings testified that there was significantevidence of satanic ritual killings; where a detective testified that Echols had made a statement regarding the mutilation of one of the victims that the jury could have reasonably concluded he would not have known about unless he had been involved in some manner; and where Echols's testimony contained additional evidence of guilt.
Therefore, in my opinion if they may or may not be a true bite mark from a human.
confession sufficient to sustain conviction if accompanied by other proof that offense was committed by someone. -- Where two witnesses testified that they overheard appellant Echols state that he killed the three boys, this was direct evidence; a confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is accompanied by other proof that the offense was committed by someone.
Evidence -- substantial evidence of appellant Echols's guilt. -- There was substantial evidence of the guilt of appellant Echols where, among other things, the testimony of witnesses placed him in dirty clothes near the crime scene at a time close to the murders; where two independent witnesses reported Echols's statement that he had killed the three boys and was direct evidence of the statement; where a criminalist from the State Crime Laboratory and a State Medical Examiner testified concerning the similarity of fibers found on the victim's clothes with clothing found in Echols's home and the serrated wound patterns on the three victims that were consistent with, and could have been caused by, a knife found in a lake behind appellant Baldwin's parents' residence; where, given the testimony of a witness that she had seen Echols carrying a similar knife and the testimony of the owner of a knife collector service regarding that type of knife, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Echols or Baldwin disposed of the knife in the lake; where Echols admitted on cross-examination that he had delved deeply into the occult and was familiar with its practices and where various items that had been found in his room supported the State's theory of motive that the killings were done in a satanic ritual; where an expert in occult killings testified that there was significantevidence of satanic ritual killings; where a detective testified that Echols had made a statement regarding the mutilation of one of the victims that the jury could have reasonably concluded he would not have known about unless he had been involved in some manner; and where Echols's testimony contained additional evidence of guilt.
