|
Hi! I guess that in terms of American humour I must be a something awful virgin as this is my first post.... It is good to see another board discussing this case in a reasonable and, mostly, considered, way. I am going to dive in as there are some points I would rather address sooner than later - the longer they are left unqualified then the more they become established as a fact in the urban legend way. My thanks to BiggerBoat for telling about this place and, in particular, this thread! First issue is the books about the case! The main two are Mara Leveritt's 'Devil's Knot' and 'Blood of Innocents'. The former is a thoughtful broadsheet style work; the latter is a tabloid style. 'Devil's Knot' contains a lot of well researched case information BUT it focuses on JMB as a highly likely suspect and ignores others who managed to maintain a low profile. As the supporter movement grew we were led to believe that only likely way of getting the three out was to present a more likely perp as an alternative. Once convicted, the burden of proof was firmly in the hands of the defence attornies. 'Blood of Innocents' was written by three journalists who covered the case for tabloid style publications. It was the first to hit the shelves, includes information gleaned from interviews from some who wanted their 15 minutes of fame and, most significantly, has changed the names of some of the more minor characters. It is, in my view, a classic example of cashing in on a sensational case, with all the attendant bells and whistles! I have tried, more often than I like to admit, to read this right through but get so irritated that it gets put to the bottom of the pile. Too many good things to read out there! The Documentaries. Paradise Lost 1 was commissioned by HBO and Joe and Bruce went to West Memphis to cover the story and trials of three teens who were believed to have committed a satanic, ritualistic triple murder. The guys got to know the community, the victims' families, the families of the accused, the public defenders, the Prosecutor and his 2nd, the judge and the police department. It is the most objective of the films but even so it does reveal that the case was not what it seemed. Bruce and Joe had to return to NY to explain that the film commissioned would not actually be the film that they would make as they felt that it was not such a 'slam dunk' as so many thought. Thankfully, they were given the green light to continue! PL2 was being filmed at a point when it was thought likely that significant developments arising from the original trials would change things. This did not happen, but by then they already had a good bit in the can and 'ditching it' did not make financial sense. It effectively became a 'filler' and up-date and kept the case alive. PL3 can be viewed as a stand alone as it covers enough of the crime, trials, appeals etc as well as the release, using the Alford Plea. 'West of Memphis' is a stand alone and was financed by Sir Peter Jackson and his partner Fran Walsh. It was directed by Amy Berg who had established herself with her film on abuse within the Roman Catholic Church. It came to be made as an alternative to the legal battles in that it was the media that Jackson and Walsh were most confident in. It also had access to the work of the Echols Defence Team (EDT) and their experts. Both the film and the EDT's investigations were bank-rolled by Jackson and Walsh. Sadly it fell into the same trap that the West Memphis Police Department (wmpd) had. In my view the investigations of both were suspect led rather than evidence driven, thus, effectively, painting themselves into corners that are hard to get out of! To address a point made more recently in this thread - DE and LD were made co-producers' by PJ and FW. This made their trip to New Zealand tax deductable and also, hopefully, will give them some sort of income from the profits of the film! Neither had any cinematographical experience aside from being at the other side of the lens! The film of 'Devil's Knot', with the Hollywood treatment, has its inaccuracies, inevitably, but is a good way in for those not inclined to enjoy documentary films. 'Untying the Knot' by one Greg Day is a biography of John Mark Byers. It was started whilst he was still a rampant 'non' and was finished after he had done a 180°. The writer acted as if he too, agreed with JMB, but after publication and promoting sales for all its worth he then revealed himself to still be a non! It does inform readers on JMB, the man. 'Almost Home' by DE, was written whilst he was on DR. It then re-appears as a substantial chunk of 'Life After Death'. The latter was an updated version and takes the reader up until after his release. Also much of the abuse suffered at the hands of the ADC Officers, which, for obvious reasons, could not be included in the first book, is included. 'Yours For Eternity' by Damien Echols and Lauri Davies comprises some of the letters they exchanged with some breaks for a commentary by one or the other. The last three do not have a great deal to add to case information, but does give the reader insight, should they want it, in to the characters of these people! 'Dark Spell' by Mara Leveritt with Jason Baldwin also gives an insight in to Jason Baldwin and is a powerful read. If there are people who seriously think that this man, as a mere kid, could have brutally murdered those three 8 year old boys, then I, for one, have no time for them! Again this is not a critical read to learn about the case! http://jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_home.html is a site that has been built over the years and presents the case in sections that can be digested in phases if new to it all. It covers all the salient points. It also goes in to detail on some of the forensic sciences. A long post - brevity is not my strong suit - but I hope it helps clarify some of the information to back up BiggerBoat's contribution that started this thread. This case is so complicated that it really might need, if interest continues, its own mini forum! If I sound 'pompous', no need to tell me! I have heard it all before. I am an alien and speak English as my first language - not American!
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Listen to this woman and be gentle with her. She can be rather long winded but she is also my friend and knows as much, if not more, about this case than I do. I asked for her help correcting anything I got wrong and after she read it registered just to post in this thread. She really cares about this case and seeing justice done. She is very nice and very smart. Doubtful a "WM3" forum could spring off on its own, Miranda, but poke around and you'll find just anything you could hope to talk about, from food to movies, politics to science, books to medicine, cars to guns...You name it, it's here. Thanks for the post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
I mean, just to play devils advocate (or, what an actual advocate would bring up) I keep my old pair of glasses, sometimes two back, even though my eyesight is slowly getting worse. If I step on my current pair, until I can get a new one it's better then nothing. I imagine dentures are similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
I'd have thought the fact that a hair bearing his DNA was found in the bindings around one of the boys is a bigger tipoff than the lockbox/dentures thing, anyway. Is there any way that that could possibly be explained away?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I mean, just to play devils advocate (or, what an actual advocate would bring up) I keep my old pair of glasses, sometimes two back, even though my eyesight is slowly getting worse. If I step on my current pair, until I can get a new one it's better then nothing. I imagine dentures are similar. Where do you keep them? In a drawer full of other junk or all by themselves in a little lock box with a marble and a single penny? Look, I'm not saying the dentures being locked away or whatever in and of themselves are the smoking gun. I'm saying I believe the dentures match the wound on Stevie Branch. If I was a juror on a Hobbs trial and I saw that evidence it'd be pretty compelling, especially combined with everything else. Kojiro posted:I'd have thought the fact that a hair bearing his DNA was found in the bindings around one of the boys is a bigger tipoff than the lockbox/dentures thing, anyway. Is there any way that that could possibly be explained away? It is. And of course there's an explanation. Secondary transfer. Except where is John Mark Byers' DNA? Where is Todd Moore's DNA? Any other family member's DNA? Most importantly, where is the DNA of the three long-haired devil-worshipping teens the State says killed those boys? That hair was IN the knot. Not ON it. Terry says he never saw the kids that day. That's one motherfucking stubborn hair, huh? And Jacoby's hair was right nearby in an area he swears he never visited. That's an awful lot of secondary transfer to the exclusion of everyone else if you think about it. The real bitch of it, like I said earlier, is that it's never been determined whose lace was used to bind which child. To my recollection, only ONE of the kids regularly played at Stevie's house (Micheal Moore I think). If it was Christopher Byers' shoelace that the hair was found in, that'd be super hard to explain, but I doubt we'll ever know. Again, lovely police work. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Hobbs' hairs etc etc So based on what evidence you've given and whatever else you know about the case, if you were a juror in a hypothetical trial against Hobbs where all that (and only that; no extra hypothetical time machine police-work to delve further into shoelaces, e.g.) was presented, would you be comfortable voting to convict him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
junidog posted:So based on what evidence you've given and whatever else you know about the case, if you were a juror in a hypothetical trial against Hobbs where all that (and only that; no extra hypothetical time machine police-work to delve further into shoelaces, e.g.) was presented, would you be comfortable voting to convict him? No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:I'd have thought the fact that a hair bearing his DNA was found in the bindings around one of the boys is a bigger tipoff than the lockbox/dentures thing, anyway. Is there any way that that could possibly be explained away? It's not his DNA? Despite people here throwing around the term DNA match it was more of a partial match. They narrowed the DNA down to 1.5% of the population, which is Hobbs and 4.5 million other Americans. Or maybe it is his DNA. There's nothing unusual about having hair from someone you live with present in your clothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:And Jacoby's hair was right nearby in an area he swears he never visited. That's an awful lot of secondary transfer to the exclusion of everyone else if you think about it. Saying it was Jacoby's hair is incredibly misleading. They narrowed it down to 7% of the population of which Jacoby is part of. That's 1 out of 14 people. There's a decent chance you or I match that hair. Edit: I just read that this hair was collected on June 3, 1993 after almost a month of potential crime scene contamination. CBT Time fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:It's not his DNA? Despite people here throwing around the term DNA match it was more of a partial match. They narrowed the DNA down to 1.5% of the population, which is Hobbs and 4.5 million other Americans. Or maybe it is his DNA. There's nothing unusual about having hair from someone you live with present in your clothing. In the knot of a shoelace? You're making a common mistake here. I'm no DNA expert or even a mathematician, but what you have to do is extrapolate the odds that it's Hobbs's DNA in context. Like, say, 1.5% of the population of Arkansas. I doubt 4.5 million Americans visited a tiny nook of woods and a muddy creek in bum-gently caress West Memphis. Yes, it could be secondary transfer. I said that. But you ignored what I posted about the knot, the shoelaces and the absence of DNA linking any other family member. Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:Saying it was Jacoby's hair is incredibly misleading. They narrowed it down to 7% of the population of which Jacoby is part of. That's 1 out of 14 people. There's a decent chance you or I match that hair. No, no, no. This makes the hair evidence even more damning because you have to extrapolate the odds by combining the likelihood of a match to BOTH individuals and then ignore the fact that nothing matched anyone else. The Hobbs match is one out of 75 people by your math. Is that right? Jacoby is 1 out of 14. These get to be rather long odds when you combine them . Others have done the math for me. quote:If you combine the two probabilities the expert presented then the chances of it not being Hobbs AND Jacoby (as in being two other people) is, I think, in the region of 10.5 out of 10,000. quote:Your calculation is spot on! [b](0.015)(0.07) Combine that with the rest of the stuff I posted, and even ignoring the color (red) and the nature of the hairs (bearded), that narrows it down even more, wouldn't you say? If they had a mark or Mellisa Byers hair, a Dana Moore hair, a Micheal Moore hair, a Pam Hobbs hair and whatever else, it might make more sense and be easier to explain. If they had ONE hair from ANY of the WM3, I'd say they were guilty, the State got it right and then eat crow in public. All of these people I mention have long hair, beards and such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:In the knot of a shoelace? Fair enough. 1.5% of the population of West Memphis at the time is still 525 people in West Memphis, and it's still incorrect to call it "Hobb's hair". I don't really have a problem with Hobb's hair being present anyway. I do have a problem with his hair being found in the middle of a knot, and I don't think that has ever been proven. The math is really not that simple. Of the many assumptions it makes it that it would be unusual for a Hobb's hair to be present at all, which isn't the case. Where are you getting that Hobb's hair was found in a knot? I'll agree that a secondary transfer hair would probably be entwined in the fibers of the shoelace itself rather than in the middle of a knot or held between the shoelace and skin of the victim. However, because this is mtDNA maybe the math should account for the ethnic/ancestral demographics of the area as well. The serotologist talked about DNA matching 1.5%/7% of the general population. I'm fairly sure "the population" in genetics refers to either the population of the world or the US. If we're only including the community of West Memphis it is possible a larger percentage of people match. quote:No, no, no. This makes the hair evidence even more damning because you have to extrapolate the odds by combining the likelihood of a match to BOTH individuals and then ignore the fact that nothing matched anyone else. The Hobbs match is one out of 75 people by your math. Is that right? Jacoby is 1 out of 14. These get to be rather long odds when you combine them The "Jacoby" hair, as I said before, was found a month after the crime on a tree stump away from the victims. The probability of two events occurring is found by multiplying them together. So for example if you pick a number on a die the chances of then rolling it twice would be 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36. Multiplying .07 x .015 gives you 0.00105; 10.5 out of 10,000 or 1 out 952. However, there's six unidentified DNA profiles from the crime scene, Hobb's fit into the 1.5% profile and Jacoby fit in to the 7% profile. I don't know the details for the other unidentified profiles but supppose all six together make up 20% of the mtDNA spectrum. You could choose any two people at random and have a 1 in 25 chance that they both get a match. I'll stop here because my knowledge of probability is limited but I know you can't just neatly multiply the two percentages together when so many factors are at play. quote:Combine that with the rest of the stuff I posted, and even ignoring the color (red) and the nature of the hairs (bearded), that narrows it down even more, wouldn't you say? As far as I know Hobb's doesn't have red hair and didn't have a beard at the time of the murders. quote:If they had a mark or Mellisa Byers hair, a Dana Moore hair, a Micheal Moore hair, a Pam Hobbs hair and whatever else, it might make more sense and be easier to explain. If they had ONE hair from ANY of the WM3, I'd say they were guilty, the State got it right and then eat crow in public. All of these people I mention have long hair, beards and such. You're arguing against secondary transfer in general here? I don't understand why no secondary transfer or multiple secondary transfers are the only options. Also, they may have very well found secondary transfer hairs from the mothers but not been able to distinguish them from the victims hairs because of mtDNA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:As far as I know Hobb's doesn't have red hair and didn't have a beard at the time of the murders. I beg your pardon. Mustache. And red-ISH. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzhy0l428m1qzy8r9.jpg Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:Where are you getting that Hobb's hair was found in a knot? I'll agree that a secondary transfer hair would probably be entwined in the fibers of the shoelace itself rather than in the middle of a knot or held between the shoelace and skin of the victim. quote:
quote:http://www.midsouthjustice.com/Chronology5.htm Bojangles was "negroid". Wet, muddy and bloody within a mile of the crime scene. quote:
EDIT: Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:You're arguing against secondary transfer in general here? I don't understand why no secondary transfer or multiple secondary transfers are the only options. Also, they may have very well found secondary transfer hairs from the mothers but not been able to distinguish them from the victims hairs because of mtDNA. No, I agree it's possible. I said as much. I just think the odds are long and to me it seems likely if it were secondary transfer, you would probably find other similar evidence tied to the other families, especially since Hobbs says he never saw the boys that day. loving hair would really have had to hang on, wouldn't it? Mark Byers had long hair and a mustache and had physically punished his child for skateboarding in the street shortly before his disappearance. Close, physical contact hours before the murders. No Hairs match Mark. The WM3 had long hair, were supposedly drunk, stoned, loving the victims and everything else. No DNA. Lastly, I'll have to re-check my info here, but I'm pretty sure the hair had to come from the male side of the family. I may be mistaken here. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Yea I think its important to remember the difference between being personally convinced that Hobbs is guilty and actually voting to convict him in a court of law. BiggerBoat(to his credit) has already said he wouldn't be able to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea I think its important to remember the difference between being personally convinced that Hobbs is guilty and actually voting to convict him in a court of law. But, what makes it even harder, for me, is that we have laws of sub judice which you guys lost somewhere mid-Atlantic! Although your legal system is underpinned by the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty', your right to say what ever you like allows for trial by media and myriad of 'stories' about any case between the crime, the arrest, the charging and then the trial. It is going to be harder and harder for the courts to find jurors who are both untainted and also honest! Jury sequestration will be more critical for a fair trial. Which is no bad thing excepting for the fact that those with busy and productive lives are going to be less inclined to want to do jury duty; Others who are 'between jobs' are going to love being put up in a hotel with all meals etc thrown in! What makes things even harder is that Prosecutors are, in the main, elected officials and so will want to 'please' their electorate, whatever they might say! No-one can serve two masters and do a good job! Given that there is so much evidence now already in the public domain, we are able to have quite a good idea of what would most probably be presented by the prosecution. Having been consumed by this case for a good while now I am pretty sure that there is still more that we do NOT know yet as the Evidentiary Hearings were leap frogged over in the fast track to the Alford Pleas. The further complication is what the State actually charge the putative Hobbs with, from the likes of an accidental series of events right up to cold blooded premeditated murders. Not forgetting the ego driven attornies who will likely queue up to defend him in order to get their names out there! Depending on experience and expertise, there is no knowing what evidence they might try to get ruled as inadmissable. In other words it is no simple binary matter! The old premise of 'better that 10 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man gets convicted' springs to mind here. If only the original juries had been more aware and able to think logically rather than let their emotions rule! Finally, I am more than happy to think that the evidence, such as we know it, is enough for a grand jury to indict. A conviction of the perp/perps would be better but at least an indictment would be some form of resolution for those directly involved. It would, all being well, also mean exoneration for the three as the state is hardly likely to try to make out that there is some grand conspiracy between 'our' suspect and the three men! And the question was not even directed at me!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Warning! Long winded and more probability theory with a bit of case stuff! Cats LOVE Cigars deserved a response!Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:Fair enough. 1.5% of the population of West Memphis at the time is still 525 people in West Memphis, and it's still incorrect to call it "Hobb's hair". I don't really have a problem with Hobb's hair being present anyway. I do have a problem with his hair being found in the middle of a knot, and I don't think that has ever been proven. Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:The math is really not that simple. Of the many assumptions it makes it that it would be unusual for a Hobb's hair to be present at all, which isn't the case. Where are you getting that Hobb's hair was found in a knot? I'll agree that a secondary transfer hair would probably be entwined in the fibers of the shoelace itself rather than in the middle of a knot or held between the shoelace and skin of the victim. Had any DNA evidence. or MtDNA, of the three convicted been found it would have been the end of any possible doubt. Had any DNA or MtDNA of other family members been found, the potential of this MtDNA, which cannot exclude Terry Hobbs, would be way less powerful. It is still weak evidence and not enough for a conviction on its own - but given the totality of all the circumstantial evidence as well . . . Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:However, because this is mtDNA maybe the math should account for the ethnic/ancestral demographics of the area as well. The serotologist talked about DNA matching 1.5%/7% of the general population. I'm fairly sure "the population" in genetics refers to either the population of the world or the US. If we're only including the community of West Memphis it is possible a larger percentage of people match. Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:The "Jacoby" hair, as I said before, was found a month after the crime on a tree stump away from the victims. Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:The probability of two events occurring is found by multiplying them together. So for example if you pick a number on a die the chances of then rolling it twice would be 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36. Multiplying .07 x .015 gives you 0.00105; 10.5 out of 10,000 or 1 out 952. However, there's six unidentified DNA profiles from the crime scene, Hobb's fit into the 1.5% profile and Jacoby fit in to the 7% profile. I don't know the details for the other unidentified profiles but supppose all six together make up 20% of the mtDNA spectrum. You could choose any two people at random and have a 1 in 25 chance that they both get a match. I'll stop here because my knowledge of probability is limited but I know you can't just neatly multiply the two percentages together when so many factors are at play. With something as specific as rolling a die or tossing a coin it is fine using vulgar fractions, but anything more 'complicated' is best left in percentages for ease of comparison. The other beauty of Probability theory is that (P)Event you want + (P)All other possible outcomes = (P)1 . So (P) of rolling two consecutive '4's on a dice is, as you state, 1/6 X 1/6 = 1/36 and (P) NOT getting a double 4 is 35/36. Probability theory is like the theoretical siide of gambling! As long as the assigned probabilities are reasonably derived then you CAN - the emphasis being on 'reasonably derived'! As already said, Hobbs had reddish hair. Also, at one point one of the hairs were described a possible pubic. This could well have been part of State's case to bolster the deviant sexual activity. However pubic hair is coarser than head hair and more like facial hair! Also any hair from the mothers might have been identifiable by length or evidence of hair stylist chemicals! The wmpd took hair samples from all the obvious people as well as potential, in their view, suspects. Hobbs' seems to have been missed out, he left town very soon after the murders! Jacoby was never even interviewed. Hobbs declined to give the EDT Investigative people a DNA etc sample (hence others having to get cigarette buts etc). Jacoby was more than willing to give samples to the team. It is late here and I am too tired to dig around for the paper work for this. It is after 1.00 am here! Have a great Labour Day weekend - this is to all the Americans (the majority?) here!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
I'll type up a longer response later but about the hair in the knot; I still haven't seen a primary source for this. I believe the forensic expert in the film was working with the same set of crime scene photos available to everyone. I think someone at some point got ligature confused with knot and its been repeated as fact ever since. Also, the DNA lab didn't single out any hair as coming from a knot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Bojangles was "negroid". Wet, muddy and bloody within a mile of the crime scene. There's some good info on Bojangles here: http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?3326-West-Memphis-Murders&p=1073669#post1073669 Also, this comes back to a lone killer theory. I find it really implausible that someone committed a physical assault with blunt objects on three boys without one of them running off. They weren't restrained until after their clothes were removed and they were dead or dying. I'll add that I don't think that when/if the truth comes out that every be piece of evidence will be accounted for. The water they were found in had garbage in it and the police weren't being careful about crime scene contamination. The guy I linked made a bunch of interesting posts between pages 10-14 in that thread if anyone is interested in the other side of things. quote:No, I agree it's possible. I said as much. I just think the odds are long and to me it seems likely if it were secondary transfer, you would probably find other similar evidence tied to the other families, especially since Hobbs says he never saw the boys that day. loving hair would really have had to hang on, wouldn't it? It's not like Hobbs had to rub his big red mustache all over the shoelaces. I'd say it's actually unlikely the hair came directly from his face to the shoelace. Most likely it got picked up off the carpet or elsewhere. Alright well you just got me to go examine my shoelaces and I found a 3/4 inch hair right away. I haven't worn those shoes since last weekend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Miranda! posted:Warning! Long winded and more probability theory with a bit of case stuff! Cats LOVE Cigars deserved a response! Thanks for the response! I will not agree it's unusual that hair from only one family member was found. It's been my personal experience that hair gets everywhere. Above I conducted a little experiment and found a hair in my own shoelaces. I'm sure when my children start wearing shoes there's a decent chance it'll end up there as well. My understanding of mtDNA is that your own is indistinguishable from your siblings or mother which just leaves us with the fathers. I guess we'd need to sample a bunch of kids shoelaces for their pep-pep's hair to see really how unusual it is. quote:Agreed! However it emerges that Jacoby left the West Memphis area prety soon after the murders. Also, whilst stating that he was never in that part of the woods he has had time to actually throw in that he means just on that night and that after the murders he did go there to reflect on the lives lost. He never stated this. Again, secondary transfer would be a possibility except for the odd fact that there was no other identified secondary transfers from family members! It could be coincidence' that his hair was the ony one to endure, but . . . Well Jacoby visiting the crime scene would actually explain "his" hair showing up on a tree stump at the crime scene. More than likely it was just left behind by an detective/csi that is part of that 7% group. quote:As already said, Hobbs had reddish hair. Also, at one point one of the hairs were described a possible pubic. This could well have been part of State's case to bolster the deviant sexual activity. However pubic hair is coarser than head hair and more like facial hair! Also any hair from the mothers might have been identifiable by length or evidence of hair stylist chemicals! Hobbs definitely has brown hair in general. He has a lighter mustache, that could be red. Probably discolored from all that smoking. Doesn't really matter though. It seems like another argument against secondary transfer in general to say the mother's hair should have been there. I don't see why it has to be binary, lots of hair everywhere or no hair at all. I'm sure everyone can identify with finding hairs in their items from time to time. Not zero percent of the time, not every time, just every now and then. quote:The wmpd took hair samples from all the obvious people as well as potential, in their view, suspects. Hobbs' seems to have been missed out, he left town very soon after the murders! Jacoby was never even interviewed. Hobbs declined to give the EDT Investigative people a DNA etc sample (hence others having to get cigarette buts etc). Jacoby was more than willing to give samples to the team. Hobbs left a full two weeks after the murders because he couldn't handle Pam or something. Marriages are often strained like this after losing a child. Regarding the DNA sample, I would do the same thing in his position. The killers are sitting in prison and the case is settled, what's the point? They had just got done ruining Byer's life for several years and were looking for someone new to vilify. The poo poo they've put the parents through is pretty reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
I used the word 'binary' in the context of finding 'guilty' or 'innocent' were I to be in the jury on this case! I agree, hair gets everywhere, so no way could it be a hair or no hair situation!! I would have expected more. In the OP of this thread BiggerBoat mentioned The WM3Blackboard Discussion forum as having 'fallen by the wayside'. Firstly it was built by a long term supporter as a stand alone and came about to re-home the original forum to be independant of those set-ups with loads of boards. Also, it did not come about until 2007, after JMB had been to the meeting called by the EDT to explain their findings before the Press Conference in Little Rock. Since then the BB had gone through various changes and had settled down as more of a broadsheet type of board, with an archived media section, a dedicated legal section and also, more recently, a section devoted to other cases or events either involving some of the same people or something else in common in the same time window as this case. We also had a whole section dedicated to all the paper-work, videos etc. around the Hobbs vs Pasdar et al civil suit. The use of silly nick names for major players was discouraged in order to be taken seriously. It was. The plug was pulled very suddenly and with no warning from the person who had originally built it (who had lived in Arkansas but moved out of state shortly after the murders). Someone had, it emerged, frightened or threatened him enough to kill it off. We know we were being read by the wmpd pretty regularily. Also John Fogelman and Burnett were aware of what was going on on the board. I am also convinced that someone, on behalf of the AG, was also monitoring us. There was discussion of a political element to this case and the way it had been handled from the start. Words like 'corruption' appeared pretty frequently! Also the FBI investigation into the CCDTF and other things interwoven with police involved in the case; The possible connections between the Prosecutor and the Hobbs family; the connections between the public defenders (excluding Judge Stidham) and the prosecutor. It was starting to seem less a can of worms than a container full of crates full of boxes full of cans of worms. A whole network of people who had some sort of hold over someone else... Hobbs has always claimed that the wmpd cannot touch him. This side of the Atlantic we are not so inclined as to leap at conspiracy theories, and I am certainly not the type! This case, however, has changed my mind. I am also now convinced that there was some 'under the table' deal between the state and Echols' attornies that even JB and JM and their attorneis are unaware of. Why else would Echols emerge saying easier to fight for exoneration from the outside and then barely mention it when promoting his first book, then West of Memphis and then his second book? I think there was an agreement that he would not lead a fight for exoneration; and, further more, for them to be exonerated now means that they have to make a case against another credible perpetrator. I started on this to explain that, were the board to still be up, I could lay my hands on the necessary paperwork to clarify where the alleged Hobbs hair was docuented as being found. One point of interest it was not in the knot binding his stepson! It is also thought to not be a lace from Stevie's shoe. It was in the knot used to tie up Michael Moore. Also, for the record, JMB was NOT the 'step-father' of Chris but the adoptive father. Mara Leveritt also wrote a book about another unsolved case 'Boys on the Tracks'. It is also well known that Arkansas, especially West Memphis, was ideally placed for serious drug running. Money travelling south and then drugs coming north and branching off east and west too! It is also believed by many that the cartels, or just one, was flying drugs into Arkansas. Allegedly Clinton enjoyed cocaine and his brother used to hang out with a known cartel member! A very murky underbelly indeed! For the record, were I an American citizen I could never be a Republican! There is corruption everywhere and in every country, so I am not just Arkansas bashing here! We are currently dealing with a mega cover-up of sexual abuse in one town going back over 10 years. Miranda! fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Aug 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Cats LOVE Cigars! posted:Hobbs left a full two weeks after the murders because he couldn't handle Pam or something. Marriages are often strained like this after losing a child. Regarding the DNA sample, I would do the same thing in his position. The killers are sitting in prison and the case is settled, what's the point? They had just got done ruining Byer's life for several years and were looking for someone new to vilify. The poo poo they've put the parents through is pretty reprehensible. If he is feeling 'vilified' then the best course is to co-operate as fully as possible - after all, his conscience must be clear! Many supporters initially considered Byers a prime suspect. A few still do. As much as he hates the way he is depicted in PL2 he has repeatedly stated he would do it again in order to keep the case alive and leading to finally getting justice for his son and his two friends. It took great courage, after being a prominant and vocal non for so long, to call a TV reporter and say he wanted air time to state publically that he had been wrong for all those years. As a result of that he was hated by both nons and some supporters for a good while! Hence the creation of the BB. The three wrongfully convicted were released in 2011 (August) and are no longer incarcerated. The Alford Plea was the key. The state can claim they have three guilty pleas and no worries about either the expence of new trials or having to admit that they do not have enough to win second guilty verdicts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I appreciate your input, Miranda, but I have to ask you one thing: quit comparing Americans and Europeans with such broad, and frankly insulting, comments, like how "your side of the Atlantic" is less inclined to leap at conspiracy theories. I should think that this thread alone has demonstrated that most people aren't conspiracy theorists, as we're debating the merits of the physical evidence instead of vast, overly-complicated schemes coordinated by the powers that be. Especially when you're talking about your old message board's founder being scared off with death threats from the West Memphis police department.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
I bet you've seen a lot of loving horrifying trial pictures, OP
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Acquire Currency! posted:I bet you've seen a lot of loving horrifying trial pictures, OP You mean autopsy photos? No. I refuse to look at them and don't ask for them. I've seen the discovery and the courtroom photos from the films along with some VERY tightly cropped images displaying specific injuries. The families LOATHE the idea of these things being shared and I respect that. I'm sure I could find them if I tried. Since leading experts agree that most of the more ghastly wound were caused by animal predation, postmortem, they wouldn't really tell me much about the crime anyway I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Bobbie Wickham posted:Especially when you're talking about your old message board's founder being scared off with death threats from the West Memphis police department. Sorry to double post and bump a thread but I missed this. That actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Except that we do not know who it was that put the frighteners on. The guy has gone to ground and no-one has heard from him since. As the 'technician apprentice' on the board I could 'track' where 'guests' went in terms of what threads they were reading, as well as being able to tell, on the whole, if they were bots trawling the site for data for the ranking on search engines! I am not saying that anyone here seems to be the 'conspiracy theorist' type - except, maybe me! However it does seem to be more peculiar to the American continent than here in the UK, although doubtless it will start happening here too, sooner rather than later! It is a matter of established historical fact that we are a rather old and now much smaller nation than we were back in the days of the Empire when we were the super power of the planet! Just one of those things. Along with the fact that you guys have built your nation using our language as the basis for yours as well as our legal system. Both have been changed as they crossed the 'pond' (an expression I dislike). The same has happened on the Indian continent as well as Australia and New Zealand. As far as I know basic word spellings have been sustained in the Antipodes as well as in Canada and India. I would tend to think that Canadians now refers to the boot of a car as the trunk though! Don't know about taps and fawcets. Given the prevalence of five-door cars though I think we now tend to say 'put it in the back of the car' rather than boot. Whilst we use many common words, the nuances and usage can be very different indeed. I am sorry that I inadvertantly caused you offence, it was not my intent. I was making no comparisons between European legal systems and yours, for there is no single such system. I believe a few southern states base their legal system on the Napoleonic code which is very different. I shall now take a fag break and watch McCain state that he recognised the threat of ISIS a good while ago. Wish he had told all of us!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:40
|
|