I'm guessing by "bite mark" you are referring to this?:
If so, I've yet to see any reason to assume that is a bite mark at all, particularly in light of the fact that those wounds are remarkably consistent with the butt and Saw edge of the lake knife. Also, while I've seen Pam Hobbs join in on the speculation against her ex-husband in the recent movies which she was paid for her participation in, I've yet to see her go so far as to actually say she thinks he did it. If you can substantiate your claim that she did, please share.
<modsnip>[/QUOTE
OK, since I am back anyway, I'll take these two points up. Poor bitemarks, they have essentially gone down the drain - and two potential suspects had their teeth removed...
The crucial fact is that the bite-marks if they were bite-marks - did not match any of the convicted - now that is a fact, and originally they were identified as bite-marks (you know these Satanists or thrill-killers, they just enjoyed biting their vicitms!). They now, according to your reasoning, or should I say sleight-of-hand? - magically (and no, not magickally) turn into something else. Now they are are "remarkably consistent with the butt and Saw edge of the lake knife.[/B]".
What exactly does "remarkably consistent?" mean? Even if these are indeed knife marks, what gives you ground to say they come from that particular knife? (The story of the knife is quite "remarkable" in itself: the divers went in and found it at once - and the press had been duly alerted, so they were present - this could not have been a "hunch" but an informant - but in court the evidence was not presented by the informant, as would have been the lege artis procedure, but the prosecutor - which is highly dubious not to say bordering on the illegal. I am not even going into the ridiculous grapefruit "reconstruction").
But anyway, "remarkably consistent" means nothing. Not being an American myself, I was amazed if not downright appalled during my first visit (and resigned during the many subsequent ones) by how many different knives an average household has - a non-murderous one at that. Scores! Whereas I do cook a lot and a few knives are totally sufficient.
As far as the killer(s) possibly using a knife, nobody has ever contested it. The thrust of the opinion of the experts (independent experts, may I remind you - and paid their usual fees for the express purpose of avoiding accusations of bias of pro bono work -and now being accused of being bribed!) - was that the majority of the wounds that so appalled and impacted the jury were postmortem and afflicted by animal predators. Nobody has ever asserted that no knife was ever used. Obviously, the poor boys did not die of animal predation. The prevailing theory is that they died of injuries of a blunt instrument, and drowning. There may have been a knife involved, too. So your theory, even if correct, proves exactly what?
As far as Pam never saying TB was the culprit - well, nobody apart from Mark Byers has ever said that, in so many words. Pam has her doubts but does not morph them into downright accusations. So that proves what?
And, BTW, who has ever said that Pam outspokenly accused his former husband? If you have evidence as to that, "please share". She has the situation where the knife she knew Steve wore all the time turned up in his former husband's belongings - nothing 100% there. She is vocal about her conviction that WM3 did not do it, but in two minds as regards TH.
(Can you imagine her being anything else? Can you imagine a mother actually convinced that she lived with a man who killed her son - that she was so eager to have a new husband as to put her son's life at risk? Personally, I would really need a crime scene video to be totally convinced - the guilt I would have to live with later would be almost insufferable).
As for her being paid for participating in the documentary - again that proves exactly what? (Apart from being one of your rich kit of manipulation techniques). Prosecutors are paid and have careers in mind, police is paid, judges are paid. The only people who were paid extremely little were public defenders, especially those who did not toe the party line.
People are compensated for their time in all situations, in America especially (e.g., no patient in a clinical trial receives any compensation in Europe, while the compensation is ample and legal in the States - this is not presented as a bribe but simply as paying for the time you spent). So she spent a substantial time on the film, was paid for the time - and was not paid to say TH is definitely guilty of the crime. Which she did not.
The defence attorneys said what they had was enough for offering a possible other culprit, nothing more. What most people have said, TH is a person of interest who should be properly investigated (which the State of Arkansas has never done), including a grand jury procedure where new witnesses would be questioned under oath.
The most even Damien Echols has ever said is that they have more evidence on this guy than they ever had on him. Jason Baldwin commented, on the basis on new confessions coming to light, that it is still "she said, he said", not proper evidence. He has been through this "she said, he said" situation before - so he does not want it to be inflicted on anybody else. ("Anybody can say anything, this is not evidence" was his comment).
So all the people involved (apart from the hopelessly flamboyant Mark Byers) have used the logic "it may be consistent with but this is not definitive proof". They have done this in regard to he DNA evidence regarding TH and David Jacobi. It has been made very clear the "consistent with" does not mean "identical with", with percentages added. )
So when you say the marks are "consistent with" a specific type of knife, you are crossing the same dangerous line that supporters have assiduously tried to avoid.
To recapitulate, a) "consistent with" is by no means "identical with" and b) Pam Hicks never said outright that she considers TH to be the culprit. She has explicitly said that she does not believe WM3 did it - and indeed participated in the promotional tour of "West of Memphis".
So the point of your post?
I'm guessing by "bite mark" you are referring to this?:
If so, I've yet to see any reason to assume that is a bite mark at all, particularly in light of the fact that those wounds are remarkably consistent with the butt and Saw edge of the lake knife. Also, while I've seen Pam Hobbs join in on the speculation against her ex-husband in the recent movies which she was paid for her participation in, I've yet to see her go so far as to actually say she thinks he did it. If you can substantiate your claim that she did, please share.
<modsnip>[/QUOTE
OK, since I am back anyway, I'll take these two points up. Poor bitemarks, they have essentially gone down the drain - and two potential suspects had their teeth removed...
The crucial fact is that the bite-marks if they were bite-marks - did not match any of the convicted - now that is a fact, and originally they were identified as bite-marks (you know these Satanists or thrill-killers, they just enjoyed biting their vicitms!). They now, according to your reasoning, or should I say sleight-of-hand? - magically (and no, not magickally) turn into something else. Now they are are "remarkably consistent with the butt and Saw edge of the lake knife.[/B]".
What exactly does "remarkably consistent?" mean? Even if these are indeed knife marks, what gives you ground to say they come from that particular knife? (The story of the knife is quite "remarkable" in itself: the divers went in and found it at once - and the press had been duly alerted, so they were present - this could not have been a "hunch" but an informant - but in court the evidence was not presented by the informant, as would have been the lege artis procedure, but the prosecutor - which is highly dubious not to say bordering on the illegal. I am not even going into the ridiculous grapefruit "reconstruction").
But anyway, "remarkably consistent" means nothing. Not being an American myself, I was amazed if not downright appalled during my first visit (and resigned during the many subsequent ones) by how many different knives an average household has - a non-murderous one at that. Scores! Whereas I do cook a lot and a few knives are totally sufficient.
As far as the killer(s) possibly using a knife, nobody has ever contested it. The thrust of the opinion of the experts (independent experts, may I remind you - and paid their usual fees for the express purpose of avoiding accusations of bias of pro bono work -and now being accused of being bribed!) - was that the majority of the wounds that so appalled and impacted the jury were postmortem and afflicted by animal predators. Nobody has ever asserted that no knife was ever used. Obviously, the poor boys did not die of animal predation. The prevailing theory is that they died of injuries of a blunt instrument, and drowning. There may have been a knife involved, too. So your theory, even if correct, proves exactly what?
As far as Pam never saying TB was the culprit - well, nobody apart from Mark Byers has ever said that, in so many words. Pam has her doubts but does not morph them into downright accusations. So that proves what?
And, BTW, who has ever said that Pam outspokenly accused his former husband? If you have evidence as to that, "please share". She has the situation where the knife she knew Steve wore all the time turned up in his former husband's belongings - nothing 100% there. She is vocal about her conviction that WM3 did not do it, but in two minds as regards TH.
(Can you imagine her being anything else? Can you imagine a mother actually convinced that she lived with a man who killed her son - that she was so eager to have a new husband as to put her son's life at risk? Personally, I would really need a crime scene video to be totally convinced - the guilt I would have to live with later would be almost insufferable).
As for her being paid for participating in the documentary - again that proves exactly what? (Apart from being one of your rich kit of manipulation techniques). Prosecutors are paid and have careers in mind, police is paid, judges are paid. The only people who were paid extremely little were public defenders, especially those who did not toe the party line.
People are compensated for their time in all situations, in America especially (e.g., no patient in a clinical trial receives any compensation in Europe, while the compensation is ample and legal in the States - this is not presented as a bribe but simply as paying for the time you spent). So she spent a substantial time on the film, was paid for the time - and was not paid to say TH is definitely guilty of the crime. Which she did not.
The defence attorneys said what they had was enough for offering a possible other culprit, nothing more. What most people have said, TH is a person of interest who should be properly investigated (which the State of Arkansas has never done), including a grand jury procedure where new witnesses would be questioned under oath.
The most even Damien Echols has ever said is that they have more evidence on this guy than they ever had on him. Jason Baldwin commented, on the basis on new confessions coming to light, that it is still "she said, he said", not proper evidence. He has been through this "she said, he said" situation before - so he does not want it to be inflicted on anybody else. ("Anybody can say anything, this is not evidence" was his comment).
So all the people involved (apart from the hopelessly flamboyant Mark Byers) have used the logic "it may be consistent with but this is not definitive proof". They have done this in regard to he DNA evidence regarding TH and David Jacobi. It has been made very clear the "consistent with" does not mean "identical with", with percentages added. )
So when you say the marks are "consistent with" a specific type of knife, you are crossing the same dangerous line that supporters have assiduously tried to avoid.
To recapitulate, a) "consistent with" is by no means "identical with" and b) Pam Hicks never said outright that she considers TH to be the culprit. She has explicitly said that she does not believe WM3 did it - and indeed participated in the promotional tour of "West of Memphis".
So the point of your post?
Funny, I've found nothing more to that in all the arguments for innocence I've seen. Probably the most flagrant example is in during the scene which starts at around 1:30:12 in PL2 where Kathy Bakken, Grove Pashley, and Burk Sauls are harassing John Mark Byers to give dental impressions to compare against the purported bite mark which obviously isn't a bite mark, most notably the part when Pashley says "we have no question that they're innocent, so that's one way of trying to prove that." The expressions on his face as he says seems to suggest he subconsciously knows how foolish it to look for evidence to support a conclusion rather than looking at the evidence to determine what conclusions can be reasonably made, but apparently he doesn't consciously realize how illogical it is do do the opposite.
Well, the many other confessions for starters.
The many confessions alone add up to far more than all the supposed evidence against Hobbs.
The evidence presented at WM3 Truth is fact, all with links to the documents on Callahan archives. If you ever care to attempt to substantiate your argument against WM3 Truth's presentation of that evidence, I'd be happy to hear you out, but the evidence exists regardless of how anyone presents it.
I don't see anything serious or genuine about dismissing the evidence as if t were just one solitary "supposed confession", and rather choose to acknowledge the many confessions along with the rest of the publicly available evidence. How is doing otherwise anything but spin?
