clinging to the whole "it was a knife wound" even though the only one who advocates it is an unqualified individual who failed to pass his certification twice
My certainty regarding the knife wounds is based on examination of the evidence itself, not from what others have said regarding it, as discussed [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226915"]in this thread[/ame].
while every other forensic expert has confirmed that they were probably animal marks
That's not true, as for example
Dr. William Sturner testified "My opinion was that the injuries to him are not characteristic of animal predation." But again, certainty is only rightly obtained by understanding the body of evidence itself, not from others' opinions regarding it.
justthinkin trying to say the hair wasn't evidence because it wasn't recovered for two weeks even after the knife wasn't made evidence FOR SIX MONTHS
That's a leap in logic commonly characterized as comparing apples to oranges.
trying to say that Terry hobbs innocently transferred that hair
It's a leap in logic to insist the hair is Hobbs' to the exclusion of his mother, his brother, and millions of other people who share his mtDNA, and one has to ignore all the other hairs recovered from the laceses and elsewhere which aren't consistent with Hobbs' mtDNA or weren't tested to ascribe significance to the one which does.
Ignoring that the jury foreman BROKE THE LAW.
I don't ignore the evidence which suggests as much, but I've never seen it anywhere close to proven, and have always considered the whole matter of the convictions moot now that the three had gotten out of prison before I even became aware of this case.
Ignoring that Terry hobbs is enough of a lunatic that he could have murdered those boys
I've seen a lot of rumors suggesting as much like in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225263"]this thread[/ame], but my requests for documentation to back the claims fall on deaf ears.
Ignoring that in Jesses's bible confession the prosecution may well have offered him a deal behind his attorney's back
May well have is not evidence, and Misskelley's Bible confession is hardly crucial to the body of evidence given his many prior confessions to his own lawyers and otherwise.