David Jacoby

[kyleb]

As you can see from his arrest record, Damien didn't live in West Memphis at the time of his arrest.

That's an arrest report from nearly a year before the murders. Does anyone here besides me know Echols' home address at the time of the murders and the time of his arrest for them, and where one can find documentation to prove as much?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sorry. I pulled the wrong image. This is the arrest image for the murders. It is a West Memphis address. However, this was his natural parents' address. He was actually living with Domini in Lakeshore Trailer Park at the time, and Lakeshore is in Marion. It's all a little convoluted. Damien's natural parents had just recently returned to Arkansas from Oregon. He was dividing his time between his parents and Domini because Domini was pregnant, but it seems that he was spending more time with Domini. It just so happens that he was at his parents on May 7th, when he was interviewed, so apparently the police used that address on his arrest record. Just another example, IMO, of the sloppy work by the wmpd. So, telling Larry King that he was living in Marion, not West Memphis, was, IMO, Damien trying to be totally honest - not lying at all as you opine! And, as West Memphis and Marion are so close, it's really not that important.

 

[kyleb]

So, telling Larry King that he was living in Marion, not West Memphis, was, IMO, Damien trying to be totally honest

And what if Echols had told King that he did live in West Memphis rather than Marion. Would you have considered that dishonest, or are you of the opinion that Echols can have his cake and eat it too?

 

[Alyssa2013]

What relevance does Echols living in West Memphis have to the discussion now? Absolutely none. This argument over whether Echols did or didn't live somewhere will just make us go around in circles.

 

[Ina Cognito]

The link I provided to a profiler-in-training was on the old version of the BB. If you weren't registered on that board, you might not be able to view it. However, it's just an expanded version of the information on the other blog for which I gave a link. You should be able to view the new BB here as a guest. You can register, if you wish. Information and instructions are provided on the site or PM me, if you're having trouble, and I'll see what I can do.

That link worked, thank you.

 

[Ina Cognito]

No, the site actually has factual links, not someone talking about manholes or turtles. But, don't take my word for it check it out yourself if you haven't already.

I'm sorry, factual links thrown into articles that are very slanted and assume a lot are not something that I'm attracted to at all.

 

[Ina Cognito]

IMO when you remove all of the satanic nonsense from this case and look at the crimes scene without those glasses on what you get the impression of is an organized perpetrator. Teens are not known for this. IMO whoever did this did so in the heat of the moment BUT knew well enough to cover up what he did as to avoid detection. I'm sorry but if 3 teens committed this crime, one with a very low IQ, there would have been a very unorganized scene, mistakes made, evidence left behind. I was very glad to read John Douglas's profile as it's the impression I have gotten and what I've been taught. The huge problem that existed in this case was the satanist premise. Once the LE locked into that premise of course their conclusion would be incorrect. This murder happened right toward the end of the paranoia over satanists in our country and a number of erroneous prosecutions of people that were employed by or own pre-schools. It was the same as the paranoia that existed in Salem that resulted in many deaths of innocent people. When the LE settled on their satanist premise and contacted the Juvenile officer for a list of people he thought could be involved, this is what brought these boys into the circle of suspicion, nothing else. Whoever killed these children IMO knew them, was able to exert psychological control over them and knew enough to hide their clothing and bicycles. I'm torn over if it was one or two persons. It could have been one... if the boys were approached by an authority figure and told to strip...that's a certain way to have kept them there. Am 8 yr old child would never imagine that an authority figure known to him would kill him, they could certainly fear the figure but would never imagine being murdered by that person, they would not have run. If indeed this figure was Hobbs, and he was angered by Stevie not coming home when he should of and he located them.... I can imagine Stevie being struck, maybe too hard and the other boys being collateral damage. JMHO based on that possibility. An adult male would be able to collect his thoughts after such an event which would allow him to think clearly to cover up the act (submerging clothes, hog tying victims, submerging bodies in water, concealing bicycles.) Anywho.. just my thoughts. Oh, I don't think that Jacoby was involved in the crime.

 

[kyleb]

This argument over whether Echols did or didn't live somewhere will just make us go around in circles.

Why go around in circles rather than simply accept what the evidence demonstrates? Are you not aware of any other documentation which proves where Echols lived around the time of the murders than this arrest report which CR linked but dismissed as "sloppy work by the wmpd" while providing absolutely no evidence to back her claim that Echols "was actually living with Domini in Lakeshore Trailer Park at the time"?

 

[Alyssa2013]

Why go around in circles rather than simply accept what the evidence demonstrates? Are you not aware of any other documentation which proves where Echols lived around the time of the murders than this arrest report which CR linked but dismissed as "sloppy work by the wmpd" while providing absolutely no evidence to back her claim that Echols "was actually living with Domini in Lakeshore Trailer Park at the time"?

I am not going to accept what the evidence demonstrates because I don't believe that it's "real" evidence. You can talk about Echols and what you think about him all you want, you are entitled to do so...but I am not interested. I would rather focus on what seems the most plausible to me in this case. And, if I am going on what I think is possible, the WM3 had nothing to do with it.

 

[kyleb]

I am not going to accept what the evidence demonstrates because I don't believe that it's "real" evidence.

But do you have any basis for believing all of the documentation regarding where Echols lived around the time of the murders is not real evidence, other than the fact that it contradicts what Echols told Larry King?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum but have followed this case for a long time. I haven't lately though and I'm interested in what you are all discussing. Where could I find a good primer on the situation with Hobbs? I know of the basic suspicion but most of what you are all referring to is new to me. Any help appreciated

Here is another link that you can use as a guideline to the facts in this case and it's not to another board that you must join as CR suggested.

http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/

 

[Cappuccino]

Links to non sites and red herrings about theories from 1995 are merely pie in the sky at this stage.

Any non who is opposing the investigation of this case needs to tell us why. Who are you protecting? We don't care where the investigation leads, even if it leads to the wm3. So why are you so determined that no further investigation should ever happen?

 

[kyleb]

I've no issue with further investigating these murders, as if I did I wouldn't be doing so myself, let alone sharing the evidence I've come across with others. In doing so I'm protecting the memories of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore, and that's what puts me opposition to those of you who go around in circles refusing to even accept what the body evidence demonstrates regarding the simple matter of where Echols lived at the time of the murders.

 

[reedus23]

What relevance does Echols living in West Memphis have to the discussion now? Absolutely none. This argument over whether Echols did or didn't live somewhere will just make us go around in circles.

Alyssa, you hit the nail on the head. It is completely irrelevant, particularly to the issues of this thread. It is, however, another prime example of how one side of an issue will re-direct the discussion to something else when there is nothing on beneficial to their side of the argument that can be said on the issue at hand.

 

[Alyssa2013]

I've no issue with further investigating these murders, as if I did I wouldn't be doing so myself, let alone sharing the evidence I've come across with others. In doing so I'm protecting the memories of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore, and that's what puts me opposition to those of you who go around in circles refusing to even accept what the body evidence demonstrates regarding the simple matter of where Echols lived at the time of the murders.

You may not have an issue with further investigating the murders, but you do have an issue with anyone who doesn't suspect the WM3. And where Echols lived is irrelevant as we have been trying to tell you. Because you refuse to accept the evidence which proves that the WM3 were not at the crime scene and therefore did not commit the murders, you are refusing to accept the truth. And that's not anyone's issue but yours. As I've said before, DNA doesn't lie. DNA does not place any of the WM3 at the scene. How can you explain that away? You can try to come up with all of these Satanic cult theories and say that Echols acted strangely, said devilish things and was a Wiccan and all of this... but saying that these things make him capable of murder is absolutely ridiculous. This is no longer a witch hunt. These three men have suffered long enough for a crime that they did not commit. Now it's time to look at those person(s) who actually had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to commit this crime, not a bunch of teenagers who were accused just because they acted, dressed, and lived differently from the most of society at that time.

 

[kyleb]

you do have an issue with anyone who doesn't suspect the WM3.

Rather, I take issue with holding the three who were convicted of the murders and eventually plead guilty to them above suspicion while going from casting suspicion on one parent to the next.

you are refusing to accept the truth

The truth is that DNA was never alleged to place any of the murderers you hold above suspicion at the scene, and the fact that it doesn't does nothing to refute the evidence which does. However, one can't rightly expect to ever get to the truth while going around in circles refusing to even accept what the body evidence does demonstrate regarding such simple matters as that of where Echols lived at the time of the murders.

 

[Alyssa2013]

Rather, I take issue with holding the three who were convicted of the murders and eventually plead guilty to them above suspicion while going from casting suspicion on one parent to the next.

The truth is that DNA was never alleged to place any of the murderers you hold above suspicion at the scene, and the fact that it doesn't does nothing to refute the evidence which does. However, one can't rightly expect to ever get to the truth while going around in circles refusing to even accept what the body evidence does demonstrate regarding such simple matters as that of where Echols lived at the time of the murders.

I've never accused any parent, I simply stated why they should be looked at as suspects. And I believe you've already said something to that effect. And you're right, one can't get to the truth if you constantly deny it.

 

[kyleb]

I've never accused any parent

Nor did I suggest you have.

I simply stated why they should be looked at as suspects. And I believe you've already said something to that effect.

Well what you believe is not what I've said, nor what I would say.

one can't get to the truth if you constantly deny it.

One can't get to the truth by selectively denying it either, be it regarding such simple matters as that of where Echols lived at the time of the murders or otherwise.

 

[reedus23]

Rather, I take issue with holding the three who were convicted of the murders and eventually plead guilty to them above suspicion while going from casting suspicion on one parent to the next.

There is no conviction.

 

[Ina Cognito]

Okay, I'll ask. What direct, tangible evidence is there that places the three men at the scene? And no, I don't want to see "Oh Damian told this girl" or "This kid in jail said so."