Evidence

[Cher Lockhomes]

Nice to see you round again Miranda!

 

[Miranda!]

I never believed the Ballard sighting, and this just confirms my suspicion. Supposedly, no one from the police department ever contacted the family to interview them -- but obviously, she and her family's address were on the WMPD's radar very early in the police reports, before the WM3 were even arrested.

From these notes, it seems like the police had talked to JCB at one of these addresses, most likely at 809 N. 14th. They took her name and address down. Wonder why she wouldn't have told the police about her supposed sighting then?

This is a bombshell.

Here, she clearly states it was before 6. Twenty years later, she states it was at 6:30.

A number of assumptions are being made here.

1. We do not know date of these door-to-door notes;
2. We do not know who was doing the canvassing.
3. We do not know that JCB was actually at the address or if someone else reported that she had said she had seen them that day.

We can, due to lack of any evidence to the contrary, assume that it seems no follow up call was made to JCB's home.

I, too, would be interested in the counter argument you know of from another board. Most people who form scenarios that cover the variables, are usually quite pleased that others shoud see them and either add or question aspects!


PLEA Someone:- Where can I find the 'debunking' video clip?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Miranda, it was posted on the Friends page. I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: Here it is: [video=youtube;Yz3clmJlwAM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz3clmJlwAM[/video]

 

[Userid]

I have been AWOL for quite a time and am only now catching up on this thread. I have ket biting my tongue not to chip in so very late in the day. However this post demands it!

The 'junk science' issue has been dealt with.

'Amateur dentist'? The dentist referenced earns his professional living as a dentist so calling him an 'amateur' is really stretching things;
You also, I think, earier, made a mention of lack of experience 'reading' teeth and bite impressions! Any dentist who has patients who need dentures takes impressions of their bite!

Using an item with known dimensions in order to calibrate the size of the unknown object in a photgraph is a 'common sense' solution to a problem. Actually a sign of intelligent problem solving!

Last of all, one of the forensic odontogists who had a chance to review 'this Dentist's' work had actually testified as an 'expert' on behalf of the state and knows the case. He did not know of the existance of the partial when he gave testimony. He also, coincidentally, was either a Professor or Lecturer when 'this Dentist' trained, and remembered him.

Maybe you did not mean to be quite so scathing in your use of the word 'amateur'. If that is the case then I apologise for my rebuttle and can only say it is down to linguistic differences in the use of English English as opposed to American English!


btw The Mildred F incident bears out Pam Hicks' comment that TWH is the tpye to get revenge. NOT a nice person.

He's "amateur" in the sense that he isn't a forensic odontologist -- and for the 1,000th time, yes, there is a difference between a forensic odontologist and a dentist, which I've already outlined in this thread and which I won't reiterate here (just read my other posts). You're correct in assuming you took my usage of the "amateur" much too literally, and I admit a better word choice would have been more appropriate on my end.

The "junk science" term (with regards to proving the bite mark), however, I won't apologize for because the video is nothing more -- which again, I've outlined why in my other posts within this thread. That said, so it the debunking video. You can try and paint it as "a clever way to solve a problem" all you like, but realistically, it's junk science employed because he completely lacks the actual resources (x-rays, actual dental impressions, anything else a qualified forensic odontologist would have at his disposal) to prove this theory, hence, he's utilizing "junk" resources like a cigarette box for crying out loud. To say this method can more than likely be "inexact" would be an understatement.

 

[zencompass]

A number of assumptions are being made here.

1. We do not know date of these door-to-door notes;
2. We do not know who was doing the canvassing.
3. We do not know that JCB was actually at the address or if someone else reported that she had said she had seen them that day.

We can, due to lack of any evidence to the contrary, assume that it seems no follow up call was made to JCB's home.

I, too, would be interested in the counter argument you know of from another board. Most people who form scenarios that cover the variables, are usually quite pleased that others shoud see them and either add or question aspects!


PLEA Someone:- Where can I find the 'debunking' video clip?

I agree that the note taking was abominable but then most of the WMPD "work" was, unfortunately. :facepalm:

 

[Userid]

A number of assumptions are being made here.

1. We do not know date of these door-to-door notes;
2. We do not know who was doing the canvassing.
3. We do not know that JCB was actually at the address or if someone else reported that she had said she had seen them that day.

We can, due to lack of any evidence to the contrary, assume that it seems no follow up call was made to JCB's home.

I, too, would be interested in the counter argument you know of from another board. Most people who form scenarios that cover the variables, are usually quite pleased that others shoud see them and either add or question aspects!


PLEA Someone:- Where can I find the 'debunking' video clip?

1. It's safe to assume it was early in the investigation, is it not?
2. The WMPD.
3. True, but nonetheless, the time of 6:00 pm was given -- either to the WMPD from the source herself (JCB) or the person to which she relayed this information.

If we're going to assume anything, it's that the time of 6:00 pm that was actually given very near to when the murders occurred would be more accurate than the time of 6:30 pm that was given 20 years after the fact.

 

[Miranda!]

1. It's safe to assume it was early in the investigation, is it not?
2. The WMPD.
3. True, but nonetheless, the time of 6:00 pm was given -- either to the WMPD from the source herself (JCB) or the person to which she relayed this information.

If we're going to assume anything, it's that the time of 6:00 pm that was actually given very near to when the murders occurred would be more accurate than the time of 6:30 pm that was given 20 years after the fact.

OK. And seen going south. Is it safe to assume that this was on N 14th St. and NOT on S McAuley Drive?

1. Yes. The door to doors must have been done relatively soon after the investigation began.

2. Of course it was by the wmpd! But we do not know the level of experience the policeman had or his competence.

Back to the less certain part.
The mother saw nothing, it seems.
Someone else at that address either saw something (the going south) or had heard that someone else had.
Someone gave JCB's name and address, maybe with the understanding that she had said something about seeing something.

For all we know it is possible that the mother reported that she had heard that JCB had allegedly seen something. There is no way of knowing for sure.

We do know that, over the years, no police notes or report of any sightings by the Ballards were found amongst the case documentation.

I am more inclined to find favour with a sworn affidavit than sloppy note made by member of wmpd. Others are equally able to run with the latter if they wish.

 

[Userid]

1. Okay, then -- so why bring it up in the first place?

2. Ah -- the "incompetent WMPD" soup du jour rebuttal. It's always so convenient, isn't it? The WMPD were incompetent is some aspects of this case -- granted -- but to assume they were incompetent at every single turn (as many seem to presume when certain evidence seems to contradict the TH theory/JCB affidavit) is stretching it.

I suppose every single police member was just as incompetent and/or corrupt as the next. I suppose the person (if not Ballard herself, which it very well could have been) who gave the information about Ballard simply heard her wrong. I suppose an affidavit given 20 years after the fact and that directly contradicts every other multiple sighting of these boys (given at the time of the murders) around 6 pm heading into the woods has more pull for you than this, as well as her weak reasoning why she never came forward with this information earlier.

All these people were wrong, but the one person who came out 20 years later was right. It's convenient, but I'll pass.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, the only thing the wmpd got right was that three eight-year-old boys were found dead in a ditch on May 6, 1993. They have refused to properly investigate this heinous crime since Day 1. They focused on DE and his friends too early in the investigation because the parents were not cleared of the murders before the focus shifted. Even GG in his Pasdar deposition admitted that the parents should be cleared first. For that reason, I question anything and everything that they state - even under oath on the witness stand!

As to the JCB statement coming late (and her mother and sister also made statements, IIRC), I accept her explanation. It's your right not to do so, but refusal to accept the statement because it was so long after the fact is simply, IMO, not a good enough reason for rejection. There is nothing in this statement that can be disproved. The time may be a bit off, but the sighting is just as reliable as any other, IMO.

There are days that stand out in memory. The day a tragedy occurs in one's neighborhood would, IMO, be such a day. Those of us old enough to remember November 22, 1963 and the three following days can give very vivid and specific memories of that time, and it was over 50 years ago! Although a shorter time has passed, the same is true of the Challenger explosion and, of course 9/11/2001, although none of these three events were likely not as personal to us as these murders must have been to these witnesses.

Additionally, I don't see any conflict in these multiple sightings. The times given could be off by as much as 30 minutes for those relying on some sort of approximation. None of them claimed that they happened to look at their watch in order to set a time. Some times are set by television programs; some are total approximations. These girls were waiting for a ride that came at the same time (at least within 15 minutes) every Wednesday night. They remember the date because it was the last time that they saw the victims alive, as would be true of anyone in the area who were to be interviewed about these murders even at this late date.

Finally, the 6:30 time is not the most critical part of their affidavits. What is critical to me is that they said that TH was calling to the boys - that he saw them (a fact which he denies to this day) at the time. That detail, along with the rest of the information we now have about this case and the facts I've explained above, makes me believe these affidavits, even if they were made almost 20 years later.

 

[Userid]

There's a lot above I directly disagree with, but I'll only address one thing because I'm sure you already know where I stand on the others:

The JCB sighting itself can be disproved by all the other eyewitness accounts of the boys heading into the woods around 6:00 pm. JCB says she saw the boys playing in her yard around 5:30 to 6:00. I'll take all the other sighting, including the two from MM's own mother and sister -- in addition to many others -- than I will JCB; but it's like you say, if you would rather take JCB's sighting over MM's own family, then that is your prerogative also.

The elapsed time does matter here. For all we know, this can simply be either a false memory or could have taken place a week prior.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

CR, Well said. Your logic is impeccable. I would like to add, JCB saw these three boys on a regular basis, JCB saw TH, PH, and AH on a regular basis, JCB saw these three boys for the very last time on this day. Not only did she see these three boys for the last time before they were brutally murdered, she spoke to CB for the last time, and believe me, that is something a person will never forget.

She was 13 years old at the time, and was 29 years old when she made this statement. If you are 60 years old when you see something, it might not be so easy remembering this when you are 76 years old (Some old people never cease to amaze me in that respect).

She did not state that she saw the three boys playing in her backyard for the whole period of time. Dana M.'s sighting does not contradict JCB's sighting, and besides, the most important part of the statement (as CR stated), is that she saw TH communicating with the boys, thus TH's statement is dubious to say the least. I do not see any conceivable reason, not to believe her statement She may have been the last person to see these boys alive, she may have been the last voice CB heard besides the voice of the perp.

 

[Userid]

She did not state that she saw the three boys playing in her backyard for the whole period of time. Dana M.'s sighting does not contradict JCB's sighting, and besides, the most important part of the statement (as CR stated), is that she saw TH communicating with the boys, thus TH's statement is dubious to say the least. I do not see any conceivable reason, not to believe her statement She may have been the last person to see these boys alive, she may have been the last voice CB heard besides the voice of the perp.

Yes, it does. JCB states she saw the boys in her backyard "between 5:30 and 6:30 pm." That would mean the boys would have had to have been in her backyard and exited sometime just before 6, then rode up to the Goodwin Entrance at RHH (around 6), then rode back down and re-entered JCB's backyard, then re-exited at the convenient moment that JCB was on her porch. This makes no sense whatsoever -- particularly, when you factor in the fact that this would have been done within a half-hour time span (6 to 6:30 pm). There would not only be zero point in riding all the way up to the Goodwin entrance and staying such a short amount of time, when their objective was to enter the woods; and there would be zero point in revisiting the same location (JCB's backyard) in such an extremely short time span (half-hour). Not only that, but it would be quite hard to prove that all of this could have taken place within a half-hour time frame -- very, very unlikely.

Another contradiction of the statement is below:

"The next day, I saw Ryan at school and he was very
upset. Ryan told me that the
boys had never come home and that the police had found
the bodies of the Stevie,
Michael and Christopher. They let out school and everyone went
home soon after that."

This is impossible because the bodies of the boys were not discovered until 1:30/2 pm on this day. RC did not know this information, not only when he awoke that day, but all the while he was in school until at least 2 or maybe even 3 or later, when he must have been notified. JMB didn't even know once the bodies were discovered immediately; it took some time for the information to get to him.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Another contradiction of the statement is below:

"The next day, I saw Ryan at school and he was very
upset. Ryan told me that the
boys had never come home and that the police had found
the bodies of the Stevie,
Michael and Christopher. They let out school and everyone went
home soon after that."

This is impossible because the bodies of the boys were not discovered until 1:30/2 pm of that day. RC did not know this information, not only when he awoke that day, but all the while he was in school until at least 2 or maybe even 3 or later, when he must have been notified. JMB didn't even know once the bodies were discovered immediately; it took some time for the information to get to him.

I agree, Userid. In fact, the bodies of CB and SB werent located until almost 3 PM, and I assume that the parents were told the horrible news after that. According to JCB, RC was at school after the bodies had been found. And shortly after he spoke with JCB, school let out. It doesnt make any sense to me why RC would go to school at that day for any reason. If I add that up with all the other things that dont make sense in JCB's statement, which you have listed, I have a really hard time believing her. One other error in JCB's statement: JCB says that she saw AH playing in the driveway at 6:30 PM. This was after TH came back from the Jacobys. However, PH said (I think in the WMPD interview) that AH told her (shortly after the murders, I think) that she had stayed with he Jacobys until TH picked her up to go to Catfish Island. This was corroborated by DJ, although he wasnt a 100% sure on that.

 

[Userid]

I agree, Userid. In fact, the bodies of CB and SB werent located until almost 3 PM, and I assume that the parents were told the horrible news after that. According to JCB, RC was at school after the bodies had been found. And shortly after he spoke with JCB, school let out. It doesnt make any sense to me why RC would go to school at that day for any reason. If I add that up with all the other things that dont make sense in JCB's statement, which you have listed, I have a really hard time believing her. One other error in JCB's statement: JCB says that she saw AH playing in the driveway at 6:30 PM. This was after TH came back from the Jacobys. However, PH said (I think in the WMPD interview) that AH told her (shortly after the murders, I think) that she had stayed with he Jacobys until TH picked her up to go to Catfish Island. This was corroborated by DJ, although he wasnt a 100% sure on that.

Great point (bolded), I forgot about that with regards to AH being at DJ's. Another thing to consider: many "TH Did It" believers use this very reason how TH could have committed this crime: AH being at DJ's would have given him the opportunity. In this JCB scenario, we have AH still in TH's possession, while these murders were occurring -- which again begs the question how TH could have committed these murders with AH in his possession. Again, great point.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

RC didn't go to school that day. He most likely went by the school about the time it got out to pick up homework or talk with friends. IMO, this is when he talked to JCB, and, since the first body was found at approximately 1:45 pm, I'm guessing that the parents (and possibly RC) were on hand when the other bodies were found, which would have been shortly before school let out at 3 pm. RC possibly went to school at that time because JMB and his mother were so distraught. He might have been seeking solace from a friend (JCB) or, as I said before, trying to get assignments. I suspect the former as I don't think he would be concerned about his homework right after he had learned his little brother was dead.

As to AH, she was only four years old at the time. The short time (maybe as little as 15 minutes) that she would have been with TH before he left to go after the boys could have been easily forgotten. As was stated, DJ wasn't 100% certain that AH was with him the entire time. We're only talking about a short period of time here. It's also possible that TH planned it that way in order to confuse people into thinking the way he wanted them to think. As to the possibility of AH being "with" TH at the time the murders were committed, she could have been instructed to stay in the car while TH "searched" in the woods. I don't believe that happened, but it is possible. In short, I don't think that the amount of time she was with TH is sufficient enough to discount either the statement of JCB or the statement of DJ, or to think they are contradictory.

 

[Userid]

^ Pure speculation, and again, it doesn't add up. He wouldn't have gone to school to pick up homework not only after but immediately after having discovered his brother was murdered -- I think that would have been the last priority on his mind! And school was out by the time the family was notified.

The fact of the matter is that, either JCB is falsely remembering this event, as I believe she is with the sighting of the boys with TH, or lying.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

RC didn't go to school that day. He most likely went by the school about the time it got out to pick up homework or talk with friends. IMO, this is when he talked to JCB, and, since the first body was found at approximately 1:45 pm, I'm guessing that the parents (and possibly RC) were on hand when the other bodies were found, which would have been shortly before school let out at 3 pm. RC possibly went to school at that time because JMB and his mother were so distraught. He might have been seeking solace from a friend (JCB) or, as I said before, trying to get assignments. I suspect the former as I don't think he would be concerned about his homework right after he had learned his little brother was dead.

As to AH, she was only four years old at the time. The short time (maybe as little as 15 minutes) that she would have been with TH before he left to go after the boys could have been easily forgotten. As was stated, DJ wasn't 100% certain that AH was with him the entire time. We're only talking about a short period of time here. It's also possible that TH planned it that way in order to confuse people into thinking the way he wanted them to think. As to the possibility of AH being "with" TH at the time the murders were committed, she could have been instructed to stay in the car while TH "searched" in the woods. I don't believe that happened, but it is possible. In short, I don't think that the amount of time she was with TH is sufficient enough to discount either the statement of JCB or the statement of DJ, or to think they are contradictory.

Compassionate Reader, though we both agree on TH's guilt, we'll have to agree to disagree on the veracity of Ballard's affadavit, and that's fine But let me ask you something. Imagine that this case comes to trial and you are the prosecutor. Would you ask JCB, her sister, and her mother up on the witness stand? My concern is that TH's defense will put the focus on the inconsistencies/things that don't add up in their statements, and that might leave the jurors with the impression that it was concocted. I'd like to hear your take on that.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Compassionate reader wrote:

RC didn't go to school that day. He most likely went by the school about the time it got out to pick up homework or talk with friends. IMO, this is when he talked to JCB, and, since the first body was found at approximately 1:45 pm, I'm guessing that the parents (and possibly RC) were on hand when the other bodies were found, which would have been shortly before school let out at 3 pm. RC possibly went to school at that time because JMB and his mother were so distraught. He might have been seeking solace from a friend (JCB) or, as I said before, trying to get assignments. I suspect the former as I don't think he would be concerned about his homework right after he had learned his little brother was dead.

That's exactly what I was thinking CR. The sentence "They let out school and everyone went
home soon after that" , could even mean, that because of the news of the murders from Ryan, the teachers decided to abandon lessons for the rest of the day. I know that this would have happened at the school I attended. Everyone would have been in a state of shock.

Lethalmathew wrote:

One other error in JCB's statement: JCB says that she saw AH playing in the driveway at 6:30 PM. This was after TH came back from the Jacobys. However, PH said (I think in the WMPD interview) that AH told her (shortly after the murders, I think) that she had stayed with he Jacobys until TH picked her up to go to Catfish Island. This was corroborated by DJ, although he wasnt a 100% sure on that.

This is what DJ said: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_jacoby_int.html

Mitchell: now uh when Terry left said he had to go check see if Steve was home, did he take his little girl with him or did she stay there or...

Jacoby: I honestly can't remember. My wife watch that kid so many times while they you know went places and I really, I'm thanking she went with him I you know I just couldn't swear to it man it's just been so long.

This is what PH said: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/pam_hobbs_interview.pdf

Mitchell: Ok Terry drove you in that car to work correct on the afternoon of the 5lh, who would be watching Amanda from the time you went to work until the time Terry came to pick you up?

Hobbs: Terry told me that he had Amanda with (her) him, and I later found out that he took Amanda ta David and Bobby’s house and Bobby watched Amanda for a while.

This is what TH said: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/t_hobbs_interview.pdf

Officer: And you never met Mark Byers before that day?

Terry Hobbs: NO

Officer: Ok, what, what happens and you, you still have Amanda with you?

Terry Hobbs: Correct

Officer: Ok, what happens then?

Terry Hobbs: I, I believe I drive around a little bit more looking for them and then go back to David and Bobby's house and I drop Amanda off there and I asked David, I said will you go help me, you know, try to find these boys. He said, come on lets go, cuz he knew Stevie up in Blytheville, he knew Pam's first husband, and he knew Pam most of her life or all of her life. And so working with him, he seems like a pretty good guy, he looks like a zz top, he had long hair, long beard *chuckle* and so, and he went with me, we drove around. He was with me probably 2-3 o-clock in the morning, may the 6th.

I don't think I see anything in these statements that contradict JCB.

Mathew, you are looking at all of this very critically, that is definitely the right way of doing it IMO. Because we don't agree on this point underlines the exact reason why I am here.

There are so many situations, statements and god knows what else in this case that are open to interpretation, there is no possible way we are going to agree on them all. If we were in a courtroom, you were the district attorney, and I was the lawyer of the defendant, we would be able to cross-examine JCB and RC to clear these things up. As it stands, JCB's affidavit and many other things, hover in the ether, and we can discuss them till kingdom come, in the end It feels to me like we're flogging a dead horse.

On the evidence that is available at callahan (who knows if it is "all" there ?) it would be an illusion to think any of us can solve this case. My aim is to show how many questions are open, how shoddy the police investigation was, how other subjects in this case are so much more viable than the WM3, and that this case must be re-opened to answer all these questions

 

[Userid]

Compassionate reader wrote:






Lethalmathew wrote:



This is what DJ said:



This is what PH said:



This is what TH said:



I don't think I see anything in these statements that contradict JCB.

DJ Statement http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_jacoby_declaration.html:

"Between approximately 6 PM and 6:30 PM on May 5, 1993, Terry got up from playing guitars and told me that he was going to his house to see if Stevie was at home. Terry told me that Stevie was supposed to be home and he thought for sure Stevie would be home "before dark" or "by dark," or something to that effect. Terry then left my house. I am 90% sure that Terry left Amanda at my house for me and my wife to watch and that Terry left my house alone. "

All due respect, I really don't understand how this isn't a direct contradiction.

 

[zencompass]

Cher Lockhomes wrote: "On the evidence that is available at callahan (who knows if it is "all" there ?) it would be an illusion to think any of us can solve this case. My aim is to show how many questions are open, how shoddy the police investigation was, how other subjects in this case are so much more viable than the WM3, and that this case must be re-opened to answer all these questions."

Amen to this! Yes we can all agree that this case is crying out to be reopened and we are thankful for your sleuthing Cher Lockhomes!